Explore the wonderful world of MacM's theories (or claims, rather). What I say is mostly based on the following quote.

To ignore that calculated change in tick rate is the only basis to claim a physical spatial distance contraction. What I have said is distance does not contract and the relavisticly moving observer therefore msut either calculated he attained a different velocity for the trip or assume his clock slowed down.
Because to claim both length contraction of space and time dilation as physically real consequences causes an observer moivng at 0.866c to make the trip in 25% of the time, not the standard 50% of the time.
Where tr = tick rate @ 0.866c tr = 0.5 vs th standard at rest clock.
The standard formula t = d/v must be changed to include the accepted physical fact of time dilation due to motion before computing any relavistic gendankin such that:
t * tr = d / v and it can be seen that by retaining the accept fact of time dilation on the moving clock that the trip will take t = d / (v * tr).
Where d = 1, v = 1
t = 1 / (1 * 0.5) = 0.5 and there is simply no physical room for a distance contraction.
Stop ignoring time dilation when you want to claim spatial contraction. You unwittingly equate a tick rate of 0.5 to a tick rate of 1.0 and you are mixing frames to assert length contraction.

<B>Claim (1)- No Reciprocity for Time Dilation</B>

MacM, read this to the end before answering. (Assuming you dare to answer. Or are you going to totally ignore this thread too, like you did, my length contraction one?).

Time dilation depends on 'absolute velocity'. In other words, if a train is moving with respect to a platform, then an observer on the platform will see a clock inside the train tick slower than his own clock, while an observer in the train will see the clock on the platform run faster than <I>his</I> clock. Provided the 'absolute velocity' of the train is greater than that of the platform.

Q. What does this mean?
A. It is possible to measure the absolute velocity of an object.

Q. How?
A. Through the following experiment. Let your current absolute velocity be v<Sub>0</Sub>. Place a clock somewhere nearby. The clock's velocity will also be v<Sub>0</Sub>. Recall the case of the moving train. Since the train's absolute velocity is greater than that of the platform (as assumed), the train's clock will slow down. But the train will see that the platform's absolute velocity is less than its own, and hence that the platform clock is faster than its own. Carry out a similar operation here. Accelerate up to a certain velocity. See whether the clock on the table is faster than the watch on your hand. If it is, then your absolute velocity is greater than v<Sub>0</Sub>. Then, start deccelerating. Now, you should see that the table clock is returning to 'normal' rate (w.r.t. your watch). Don't stop deccelerating when you get back to v<Sub>0</Sub>. Continue (accelerating in the opposite direction to the previous one). And then, you should either see that the table clock slows down further, or that it again starts speeding up.
Case (i): The former case occurs when v<Sub>0</Sub> (absolute velocity) is not zero. Which means that you initially had some non-zero absolute velocity. And when you first accelerated, it was in the same direction as this velocity, and that is why your clock slowed down (since you had greater absolute velocity than the table clock). But when you started accelerating in the opposite direction, your absolute velocity started <I>decreasing</I>. And when your absolute velocity became lower than v<Sub>0</Sub>, your clock started running faster than the table clock. Continue this until you see the table clock start to run faster again. This is when you reach zero absolute velocity, and start gaining speed in the opposite direction. Note this point. Now, you are at absolute rest.
Case (ii): This is the same as the end of case one. When you are at absolute rest. which implies that your original absolute velocity v<Sub>0</Sub> was zero.

So, now you can determine absolute velocity. MacM, get back to me with the absolute velocity of the Earth. Maybe you can base your Ph.D paper on this.

Here's an alternative. The above experiment might be denied by MacM, based on his 'common rest point' (CRP) theory. Which says that since you and the table clock were intially at rest in the original frame, this frame is your 'common rest frame', and so it doesn't matter in whichever direction you accelerate, since you'll always have a velocity with respect to this frame.

Here goes. If you were on Earth initially, and you started moving, in whichever direction, you would see Earth clocks ticking faster w.r.t your own clock. This is utterly impossible, and is more ridiculous than the other claim of absolute velocity. For this would mean that the rate of your clock depends on when you were born (or when you became conscious). How? This is how.
Consider the above experiment. According to the CRP theory, whichever direction you gain speed in, you'll always see the table clock run faster than your's. Imagine that the table clock had been constructed by someone on the moon, and then brought to the Earth. So for someone on the moon, the moon would have been the common rest point for him and the clock, and hence, the clock, which is now moving w.r.t him and the CRP (the moon), should be ticking slower. All this took place long back. You were born later, and have no knowledge of this. So you accelerate in the same direction as the moon, and eventually reach it, where you stay. Now the Earth table clock is moving faster with respect your clock. But according to the guy on the moon, it is running slower than his own clock (remember?). So the end scenario is this. The moon clock is running at some rate. The Earth clock (which was originally brought from the moon) is running slower than the moon clock. Your clock is running slower than the Earth clock. So that your clock is also running much slower than the moon clock. Remember that at this point, you're standing on the moon. Probably next to the guy who originally made and launched the Earth clock. So you're at rest w.r.t him, and while you're standing chatting with him, you can see that your clock is much slower than his clock! And why? Just because you were born without the knowledge that this was the original clock maker. MacM, made all this up because he refused to believe that two clocks could tick each at different rates (each slower than the other), in different frames. And now he's reached the point where he says that two clocks in the <I>same frame</I> tick at different rates.

So much for the wonderful predictions of MacM's CRAP Theory.
....
Oooooooooops! I made a typo. Oh well! I don't have time to correct it now. Everyone, just read it as MacM's CRP theory instead of MacM's CRAP theory. That is, if you can force yourself to do so.

<B>Claim (2)- Biased Velocity</B>

Biased Velocity (term coined by me) is the MacM theory which says that if we launch a spaceship at velocity 'v', then an observer in the spaceship will measure our velocity as being greater than 'v'. To be exact, he'll see it as (gamma)*v. For an electron which has been accelerated to .866c, then gamma will approximately be 2. So our velocity as seen by the elctron will be 2*.866c = 1.732c. So in the electron's frame, we have a velocity greater than that of light, in the elcetron's frame. I'll leave it to you to think about that.

<B>Claim (3)- Length Non-Contraction</B>

Which simply says that length contraction is completely bogus. And this follows from the first two claims, whose validity we saw very clearly. And of course, I've also provided two derivations of Length Contraction (in my thread 'Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues), the second of which does not depend on reciprocity, either of time dilation, or of velocity. But MacM has chosen to blatantly ignore this, despite my repeatedly pointing it out to him.

The arguments given so far are direct arguments to the claims. These are completely unnecessary if one turns to the results of Lorentz transformations. And these can be derived simply from the postulates, and assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy of space and time, without invoking reciprocity, or any other <I>apparently</I> confusing results. Length contraction, time dilation, simultaneity-effects, and the other results of relativity can be derived without any further assumptions. I wonder what MacM has got to say to that.
<Style> sub{font-size: 12px;} </Style>

Sticky this post. The fact that MacM hasn't responded with even an insult, is evidence that he is beaten.

Explore the wonderful world of MacM's theories (or claims, rather). What I say is mostly based on the following quote.

<B>Claim (1)- No Reciprocity for Time Dilation</B>

MacM, read this to the end before answering. (Assuming you dare to answer. Or are you going to totally ignore this thread too, like you did, my length contraction one?).

Time dilation depends on 'absolute velocity'. In other words, if a train is moving with respect to a platform, then an observer on the platform will see a clock inside the train tick slower than his own clock, while an observer in the train will see the clock on the platform run faster than <I>his</I> clock. Provided the 'absolute velocity' of the train is greater than that of the platform.

For the 100th time. I have not and do not argue the "Perception" issue but only the accumulated time dilation of clocks. Although I suggest your statement above is correct and there is simply no data, observation or evidence which contridicts that view.

Q. What does this mean?
A. It is possible to measure the absolute velocity of an object.

Absolutely not. I have never claimed otherwise.

Q. How?

Your disertation is baloney.

So, now you can determine absolute velocity. MacM, get back to me with the absolute velocity of the Earth. Maybe you can base your Ph.D paper on this.

I'll refrain from my instinct to tell you where to go and simply make it a matter of record once more that I have never claimed absolute motion can be detected. However, within relative velocity there is clearly component motions (velocities) of the two clocks. Only one can be at actual rest and still have relative velocity.

Rest is nothing more than an inertial velocity. But that is a local rest and may actually (and most certainly is motion in a universal sense). It is rather neat that both clocks can be at rest due to having an inertial velocity. The differance is only one will ever actually run slow and display less accumulated time and that is due to the fact that what you call rest is still actually absolute motion even though you have no way of measuring what it is.

Here's an alternative. The above experiment might be denied by MacM, based on his 'common rest point' (CRP) theory. Which says that since you and the table clock were intially at rest in the original frame, this frame is your 'common rest frame', and so it doesn't matter in whichever direction you accelerate, since you'll always have a velocity with respect to this frame.

That is a valid statement (Except the CRP part of course). All relavistic functions are based on energy level and one must accelerate to change velocity and that requires energy input.

Here goes. If you were on Earth initially, and you started moving, in whichever direction, you would see Earth clocks ticking faster w.r.t your own clock. This is utterly impossible, and is more ridiculous than the other claim of absolute velocity.

Really? Prove it. Give some test data that supports your denial of that affect. Actually GPS proves it is true. The orbiting clock has to be sped up +7.2us/day to cause it to remain synchronized with surface clocks. (GR excluded).

For this would mean that the rate of your clock depends on when you were born (or when you became conscious). How? This is how.
Consider the above experiment. According to the CRP theory, whichever direction you gain speed in, you'll always see the table clock run faster than your's. Imagine that the table clock had been constructed by someone on the moon, and then brought to the Earth. So for someone on the moon, the moon would have been the common rest point for him and the clock, and hence, the clock, which is now moving w.r.t him and the CRP (the moon), should be ticking slower. All this took place long back. You were born later, and have no knowledge of this. So you accelerate in the same direction as the moon, and eventually reach it, where you stay. Now the Earth table clock is moving faster with respect your clock. But according to the guy on the moon, it is running slower than his own clock (remember?). So the end scenario is this. The moon clock is running at some rate. The Earth clock (which was originally brought from the moon) is running slower than the moon clock. Your clock is running slower than the Earth clock. So that your clock is also running much slower than the moon clock. Remember that at this point, you're standing on the moon. Probably next to the guy who originally made and launched the Earth clock. So you're at rest w.r.t him, and while you're standing chatting with him, you can see that your clock is much slower than his clock! And why? Just because you were born without the knowledge that this was the original clock maker. MacM, made all this up because he refused to believe that two clocks could tick each at different rates (each slower than the other), in different frames. And now he's reached the point where he says that two clocks in the <I>same frame</I> tick at different rates.

So much for the wonderful predictions of MacM's CRAP Theory.

So much for distortions. The moon and earth both have set velocities and clocks will tick at specific rates when moving at those veloicties. You forgot that didn't you. You seem to be mis-applying the math.
....
Oooooooooops! I made a typo. Oh well! I don't have time to correct it now. Everyone, just read it as MacM's CRP theory instead of MacM's CRAP theory. That is, if you can force yourself to do so.

Nobody can be forced to think. That is an unfortunate fact.

<B>Claim (2)- Biased Velocity</B>

Biased Velocity (term coined by me) is the MacM theory which says that if we launch a spaceship at velocity 'v', then an observer in the spaceship will measure our velocity as being greater than 'v'. To be exact, he'll see it as (gamma)*v. For an electron which has been accelerated to .866c, then gamma will approximately be 2. So our velocity as seen by the elctron will be 2*.866c = 1.732c. So in the electron's frame, we have a velocity greater than that of light, in the elcetron's frame. I'll leave it to you to think about that.

You might be so kind as to point out where you think I ever said that is the case. I haven't. I did point out that when claiming spatial contraction by ignoring the physical known time dilation affect on the clock in motion for which you claim spatial contraction by calculating d = v * t, you have not eliminated the alternative which is that the observer could as well calculate that his velocity was greater, not that distance was shorter. i.e. v = d / t.

Care to retract your nonsense. Or better yet address the fact that the dilated condition of the clock is ignored when doing the distance calculation.

Given 0.866c, t = 0.5 normal.

Also the tick rate factor 'k' is 0.5; d = v * t / k = 1 * 0.5 / 0.5 = 1; distance didn't change.

<B>Claim (3)- Length Non-Contraction</B>

Which simply says that length contraction is completely bogus. And this follows from the first two claims, whose validity we saw very clearly. And of course, I've also provided two derivations of Length Contraction (in my thread 'Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues), the second of which does not depend on reciprocity, either of time dilation, or of velocity. But MacM has chosen to blatantly ignore this, despite my repeatedly pointing it out to him.

I beg to differ. I have not ignored any such thing. Please post a link to your nonsense.

The arguments given so far are direct arguments to the claims. These are completely unnecessary if one turns to the results of Lorentz transformations. And these can be derived simply from the postulates, and assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy of space and time, without invoking reciprocity, or any other <I>apparently</I> confusing results. Length contraction, time dilation, simultaneity-effects, and the other results of relativity can be derived without any further assumptions. I wonder what MacM has got to say to that.
<Style> sub{font-size: 12px;} </Style>

Bullshit. How do you propose to ignore reciprocity? How do you justify ignoring the tick rate of the clock that makes a trip in half the time when it's tick rate = 0.5 and then claim distance changed. It cannot have changed or the clock would have accumulated even less time (25%) for trip.

You might attempt to address these issues rather than creating this long BS diversion.

Sticky this post. The fact that MacM hasn't responded with even an insult, is evidence that he is beaten.

Sticky this where the sun doesn't shine you pompus arrogant egotistical twit. Wrong again aren't you.?

I have things to do other than search for threads attacking me. If you will note I have responded to perhaps a dozen posts in other threads.

BTW: James R, I would expect to see you admonish Rosnet, as you did me for breaking the rules by commenting about somebody not posting. I waited several days before noting that Yuriy had not responded. Rosnet seems to think 16 hours means no response.

...breaking the rules by commenting about somebody not posting.

What rules?

What rules?

The same ones that were cited when I commented that Yuriy had not responded to my post. Or was that merely made up because it was handy for ou at the time.

Sticky this post. The fact that MacM hasn't responded with even an insult, is evidence that he is beaten.
James R, I would expect to see you admonish Rosnet, as you did me for breaking the rules by commenting about somebody not posting.

I made that post in order to provoke MacM, as he has been ignoring some of my other posts too. You may admonish me or whatever.

Sticky this where the sun doesn't shine you pompus arrogant egotistical twit.
...
Your disertation is baloney.
...
Care to retract your nonsense
...
Please post a link to your nonsense.
...
Bullshit.
...
You might attempt to address these issues rather than creating this long BS diversion.

The fact that MacM <I>has</I> responded with insults after I accused him is further evidence that he is beaten!

Don't pay much attention to the above post. Just having some fun.

For the 100th time. I have not and do not argue the "Perception" issue but only the accumulated time dilation of clocks. Although I suggest your statement above is correct and there is simply no data, observation or evidence which contridicts that view

What you have said as to the accumulated time in clocks is in perfect agreement with relativity. Relativity <I>does</I> talk about what an observer in motion sees (percieves, if you wish) while he is in motion, and not just after he's stopped. This is important (maybe not for you, but for Physics, it is). But you don't care to talk about it, or think about it. So you don't disagree with relativity there either. I didn't say that you <I>agree</I>, but you certainly don't disagree. So in short, there is no disagreement between you and relativity. THEN WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN YAPPING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME?
Can you for once, tell us what you actually <I>do</I> claim, instead trying to deny having made claims?

Q. What does this mean?
A. It is possible to measure the absolute velocity of an object
Absolutely not. I have never claimed otherwise
I'll refrain from my instinct to tell you where to go and simply make it a matter of record once more that I have never claimed absolute motion can be detected

But you <I>have</I> claimed this:
From <A href= "http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46454&page=3&pp=20">Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation- Page 3</A>
The only thing verified is a one way gamma calculation where clock tick rate can be shown to vary as a function of its local absolute velocity relative to a common rest referance point and not merely relative to another clock which can claim a reversal of frames and affect

Suppose you claimed that division by zero is perfectly feasible. Then, if I I used it prove to you that 1=2, and you deny having claimed any such thing, how smart are you? You don't have to claim each and every thing specifically. All the implications of any claim made by you are your responsibilty. I demonstrated how it was possible to determine absolute velocity on assuming that your claim (about time dilation depending on absolute velocity) was true. I specifically stated that this is what it <B>means</B>. But the implication is your responsibilty, even if you didn't directly claim it. Or you have to show where exactly I made a mistake in my derivation. And I also provided an alternative in case you denied your first claim (as you did, according to my prediction). The alternative your CRP theory.

Here's an alternative. The above experiment might be denied by MacM, based on his 'common rest point' (CRP) theory. Which says that since you and the table clock were intially at rest in the original frame, this frame is your 'common rest frame', and so it doesn't matter in whichever direction you accelerate, since you'll always have a velocity with respect to this frame.
That is a valid statement (Except the CRP part of course). All relavistic functions are based on energy level and one must accelerate to change velocity and that requires energy input

You denied your first claim. Now you say that the CRP part is also invalid. So how <I>do</I> you propose to deny reciprocity? The second part of your sentence, about energy talks about accelerations. From where? From the 'common rest point'? No? Then you must consider <I>all</I> the accelerations that have taken place. And this leads us back to the absolute velocity, your first claim, which you denied. So what you've done is, when someone talks about the absolute velocity theory, you deny this and points out CRP to him. When someone talks about CRP, you deny this, and talk about acceleration, which, since you denied CRP, leads back to absolute velocity. Nice going.

If you were on Earth initially, and you started moving, in whichever direction, you would see Earth clocks ticking faster w.r.t your own clock. This is utterly impossible, and is more ridiculous than the other claim of absolute velocity
Really? Prove it. Give some test data that supports your denial of that affect. Actually GPS proves it is true. The orbiting clock has to be sped up +7.2us/day to cause it to remain synchronized with surface clocks

I <I>have</I> proved it. I don't have to provide data on this specifically. If Physics consisted of looking for and recording data of each singe detail, there would be no Theoretical Physics. Science is about making predictions based on your previous observations. I have proved what I claimed (unlike someone we know) by showing the implications. Since the implications of your claims are ridiculous, your claims themselves are ridiculous. GPS does <I>not</I> prove this. What it does prove is that the clock in a moving GPS frame dilates, as seen from Earth. It does <I>not</I> prove that a person in the GPS frame sees the Earth clock ticking <B>faster</B>. And the clocks are synchronised in the Earth frame. Not in the satellite's frame.

The moon and earth both have set velocities and clocks will tick at specific rates when moving at those veloicties. You forgot that didn't you.

You might be so kind as to point out where you think I ever said that is the case.

From <A href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47363&page=1&pp=20">Relativity for Sciguy</A>:
Distance did not and cannot have changed.
...
The only valid conclusion from all this is to assume the moving observer would calculate his velocity as being higher than would be calculated by a resting observer

From <A href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47123&page=8&pp=20">The Death of Relativity- Page 8</A>
To reduce this issue to something a bit more understandable.

Take two clocks A and B with ...
But B would calculate that he had traveled 120 Mph not 60 Mph


I haven't. I did point out that when claiming spatial contraction by ignoring the physical known time dilation affect on the clock in motion for which you claim spatial contraction by calculating d = v * t, you have not eliminated the alternative which is that the observer could as well calculate that his velocity was greater, not that distance was shorter. i.e. v = d / t.

Care to retract your nonsense. Or better yet address the fact that the dilated condition of the clock is ignored when doing the distance calculation.

There you go again, denying claims, but not caring to make clear, what it is that you really say. Let me help you. Even though you still haven't solidly said anything, you have, in fact, given two choices:
(i) Length contraction - which depends on reciprocity of time dilation and velocity
(ii)Non-reciprocity of time dilation- Which implies non-reciprocity of velocity, absence of length contraction.

You've said that when proving length contraction, we're ignoring the 'fact' of 'physical known time dilation'. And then you say that there is an alternative, which is the biased velocity effect that I mentioned earlier. It has to be either one. You alternately refute each, when pointed out. Come on, tell us which one you actually think is true. Length contraction, or biased velocity? Before making up your mind, take a look at the <B>second</B> post in this thread, which does not ignore any time dilation, or assume that each person see the other's clock as dilated:
<A href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=833683">Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues</A>

Bullshit. How do you propose to ignore reciprocity? How do you justify ignoring the tick rate of the clock that makes a trip in half the time when it's tick rate = 0.5 and then claim distance changed. It cannot have changed or the clock would have accumulated even less time (25%) for trip
I never said I <B>ignored </B> reciprocity. I just did not use it. So that you cannot argue I didn't consider 'physical known time dilation'. The derivation, in fact, <I>uses</I> this.

Please post a link to your nonsense
Sorry, I can't do that, simply because I haven't posted any nonsense!

I made that post in order to provoke MacM, as he has been ignoring some of my other posts too. You may admonish me or whatever.

Again I request you post links to any post you claim I hae ignored. I have not ignored any. If I have missed them it is because I have not subscribed to the threqad and am busy answering those I have.

The fact that MacM <I>has</I> responded with insults after I accused him is further evidence that he is beaten!

I responded in kind. Your post was an insult. And Blah, blah, blah about being beaten. You wish. We all notice you have not responded with any physics rebuttal and now chose to post selfserving innuendo.

Now for the rest of us beaten folks please post:

1 - A case of observed and recorded reciprocity predicted by Special Relativity.

2 - Justify disregararding the tick rate of a dilated clock in motion when computing distance by d = v * t, so as to claim spatial contraction of distance.

There is more but this should keep you busy for a while I would think. :D

1 - A case of observed and recorded reciprocity predicted by Special Relativity.

No such thing as you state it.

Justify disregararding the tick rate of a dilated clock in motion when computing distance by d = v * t, so as to claim spatial contraction of distance.

What disregard of the tick rate? What are you talking about?

What disregard of the tick rate? What are you talking about?
I suggest you see this (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47625) thread, where I try to get MacM to respond to that very question.

It took him a week to explain it. (And, of course, he didn't have a leg to stand on.)

No such thing as you state it.


Sorry SL but you stand corrected:

************************************************** ************************************************** ****
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm

Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered.

************************************************** *************************

Yes Mac, that sounds right. Where do you see it saying that both clocks will do anything other than OBSERVE the other to be dilated???

What disregard of the tick rate? What are you talking about?

This is interesting. This has been explained at least two dozen times and yet you want to pretend it has not.

1 - Is it not true that your claim that a distance i.e. of 1 lyr at rest is based on a tick rate which for comparative purposes we can say is one tick per second?

2 - Is it not true that in comparison to this tick rate that the clock in motion at 0.866c has a tick rate that is only one half (50%) that of the proper tick rate at rest?

3 - Is it not true that given a tick rate that a clock will accumulate a certain amount of time in direct proportion to that tick rate and that to traverse a spatial dimension of 1 lyr an at rest clock will record the trip time at 0.866c as taking 1.1547 years?

4 - Is it not true that the clock in motion ticking at 0.5 the rate of the rest clock will only record 0.5774 years for the same trip?

5 - Is it not true that if you retain the physics knowledge we have of the events where tr is comparative tick rate of clocks:

1 lyr = 9.4608¹⁵ meters.
0.866c = 2.598⁸ meters/second
1 year = 31,536,000 seconds

Case for 1.15 years at 0.866c bassed on standard rest clock tick rate = 1:

d = v * t /tr = 2.598⁸ m/s * 1.1547 years *3.1536⁷ sec/yr) / 1 = 9.4608¹⁵meters = 1 lyr.

Case for dilated clock aboard moving craft at 0.866c and tick rate = 0.5:

d = v * t /tr = 2.598⁸ m/s * 0.5774 years *3.1536⁷ sec/yr) / 0.5 = 9.4608¹⁵meters = 1 lyr.


Hmmmmm.

Is it not true that you just posted a bunch of sentences starting with is it not true?

Hmmmmmm

Yes Mac, that sounds right. Where do you see it saying that both clocks will do anything other than OBSERVE the other to be dilated???

Perhaps I need new glasses. Please highlite the term "Observe" in that passage. If you want to contend SR is mere perception in this area, then while I disagree, I will not argue with you but if you (as has James R) want to claim physical realities then we do firmly disagree.

Not tonight pal. Im toast. Nighty nite

MacM:

This is interesting. This has been explained at least two dozen times and yet you want to pretend it has not.

You must be confusing me with somebody else.

1 - Is it not true that your claim that a distance i.e. of 1 lyr at rest is based on a tick rate which for comparative purposes we can say is one tick per second?

Distance doesn't depend on anybody's tick rate.

Let's assume you are talking about a ruler at rest which is 1 lyr long, shall we?

2 - Is it not true that in comparison to this tick rate that the clock in motion at 0.866c has a tick rate that is only one half (50%) that of the proper tick rate at rest?

If a spaceship carrying another ruler is in motion with respect to the first one at 0.866c, then according to a clock in the rest frame of the first ruler, the spaceship clock will indeed tick at 50% the rate of the clock at rest.

3 - Is it not true that given a tick rate that a clock will accumulate a certain amount of time in direct proportion to that tick rate and that to traverse a spatial dimension of 1 lyr an at rest clock will record the trip time at 0.866c as taking 1.1547 years?

An "at rest" clock doesn't travel anywhere. Only moving clocks traverse spatial distances.

In this case, a clock in the rest frame of the first ruler will record the spaceship as taking 1.15 years to travel the 1 lyr distance at 0.866c.

4 - Is it not true that the clock in motion ticking at 0.5 the rate of the rest clock will only record 0.5774 years for the same trip?

The spaceship clock will record 0.5774 years to travel the same distance, yes. Of course, the spaceship's ruler will measure the distance as being only 0.5 light years.

5 - Is it not true that if you retain the physics knowledge we have of the events where tr is comparative tick rate of clocks

Which frame is tr in?

Case for 1.15 years at 0.866c bassed on standard rest clock tick rate = 1:

d = v * t /tr = 2.5988 m/s * 1.1547 years *3.15367 sec/yr) / 1 = 9.460815meters = 1 lyr.

Actually, it's just d=vt = (2.5988 x 10⁸ m/s)(1.15 years) = 9.94608 metres = 1 lyr. No need for tr.

Case for dilated clock aboard moving craft at 0.866c and tick rate = 0.5:

d = v * t /tr = 2.5988 m/s * 0.5774 years *3.15367 sec/yr) / 0.5 = 9.460815meters = 1 lyr.

No. You're mixing frames. It should be:

d' = v't',

where v' is the speed of the first ruler (the spaceship being at rest, of course).

d' = (0.866c)(0.577 years) = 0.5 lyr.

Hence, in the spaceship frame, the first ruler is only 0.5 lyr long. It is length contracted.

No need for tr, again.

MACM,

I suggest U not to waste your energy fighting these innocent Apes. Instead U should ask them questions so powerful that they should not be able to answer them with their current level of imaginations.

Refrain from debating thoes who are determined to defeat U instead of unearthing the truth. Start medetating.

I made that post in order to provoke MacM, as he has been ignoring some of my other posts too. You may admonish me or whatever.



The fact that MacM <I>has</I> responded with insults after I accused him is further evidence that he is beaten!

Distance doesn't depend on anybody's tick rate.

Then just how other than d = v * t are you calculating distance?

Let's assume you are talking about a ruler at rest which is 1 lyr long, shall we?

I assume you mean a 1 lyr ruler at rest between two points. You didn't specify.

If a spaceship carrying another ruler is in motion with respect to the first one at 0.866c, then according to a clock in the rest frame of the first ruler, the spaceship clock will indeed tick at 50% the rate of the clock at rest.

Good then we agree the clock in motion ticks (in this case) at only one half the rate of a stationary clocks located at each end of the at rest 1 lyr ruler.

An "at rest" clock doesn't travel anywhere. Only moving clocks traverse spatial distances.

I suggest that is understood. The clockis at rest and is timing the spacehip carrying another clock.

In this case, a clock in the rest frame of the first ruler will record the spaceship as taking 1.15 years to travel the 1 lyr distance at 0.866c.

That is correct.


“ 4 - Is it not true that the clock in motion ticking at 0.5 the rate of the rest clock will only record 0.5774 years for the same trip? ”

The spaceship clock will record 0.5774 years to travel the same distance, yes. Of course, the spaceship's ruler will measure the distance as being only 0.5 light years.

Incorrect. A ruler aboard the space ship (according to SR) will be contracted to the equivelent of 6 inches. Even if spatial dimension occured (which it doesn't) the contracted ruler would measure it as being the same distance. i.e. A 6 inch ruler fits twice per foot of distance and if distance is contract to one half the length the number of ruler fits is the same. Good show James R.

Which frame is tr in?

I would think you know that answer. AThe clock in motion ticks only one half as fast as a comparative clock at rest which calculated the 1 lyr distance.

The clock in motion doesn't realize his clock is ticking slow so he times his trip as only requiring one half the time. Which is your basis for claiming distance contracted. You are making a claim using an ignored physical fact of reduced tick rate and the formula d = v * t.

You are also ignoring the obvious alternative that he doesn't see point "B" as closer but the same distance and concludes he is traveling twice as fast due to his slow clock.

Actually, it's just d=vt = (2.5988 x 108 m/s)(1.15 years) = 9.94608 metres = 1 lyr. No need for tr.

Only if:

1 - You are calculating the rest clock view.

2 - You chose to continue to ignore the clock in motion is ticking at 50% the satandard rate and hence will miss time the trip causing you to falsely claim spatial contraction.


“ Case for dilated clock aboard moving craft at 0.866c and tick rate = 0.5:

No. You're mixing frames. It should be:

d' = v't',

where v' is the speed of the first ruler (the spaceship being at rest, of course).

d' = (0.866c)(0.577 years) = 0.5 lyr.

Hence, in the spaceship frame, the first ruler is only 0.5 lyr long. It is length contracted.

No need for tr, again.

Wrong again. You are ignoring physical facts supported by emperical data. That is that the clock in motion is ticking more slowly; hence should record less time for the same trip distance.

If you acknowledge that the clock is physically ticking more slowly; plus contract the distance then the trip would only require 25% the standard rest calculated view.

You are also forgeting that the ruler aboard the spaceship is also only 6 inches long in comparison to the rulers used to mark the distance at rest and hence it still measures distance as being the same number of ruler increments.

Try again.

MacM:

As usual, you're hopelessly mixing up two different reference frames.

I assume you mean a 1 lyr ruler at rest between two points. You didn't specify.

There's no way to know whether a ruler is absolutely at rest or not, so I don't care if it is at rest or not. I'm only worried that the second ruler moves relative to the first one.

Good then we agree the clock in motion ticks (in this case) at only one half the rate of a stationary clocks located at each end of the at rest 1 lyr ruler.

We agree, in the frame of the first ruler. I am sure we completely disagree about what happens in the other frame.

Incorrect. A ruler aboard the space ship (according to SR) will be contracted to the equivelent of 6 inches.

I guess you're talking about a ruler of proper length 1 foot. Your statement is incomplete, because you ignore reference frames again. In the frame of the first ruler, a moving ruler of proper length 1 foot will be 6 inches long. In the spaceship frame, the same ruler will be 1 foot long.

Even if spatial dimension occured (which it doesn't) the contracted ruler would measure it as being the same distance.

What is this "spatial dimension" you speak of?

i.e. A 6 inch ruler fits twice per foot of distance and if distance is contract to one half the length the number of ruler fits is the same. Good show James R.

I'll explain it to you one more time, ok.

If you lay the two rulers (first ruler and spaceship ruler) side by side, and they boh have rest lengths of 1 foot, then:

* in the first ruler's frame, the first ruler will measure the length of the second ruler to be 6 inches, on the first ruler's scale.
* in the spaceship ruler's frame, the spaceship ruler will measure the length of the first ruler to be 6 inches, on the spaceship ruler's scale.

This is NOT what you think, which is that in the first ruler's frame, the second one would be measured as 6 inches on the first scale, and in the second one's frame the first would be measured as 24 inches on the second's scale.

What you are talking about is MacM wacky physics, and pretending it is relativity. You need to learn relativity if you're going to try to criticise it.

The clock in motion doesn't realize his clock is ticking slow so he times his trip as only requiring one half the time.

The clock in motion DOES NOT tick slow in its own rest frame. The idea that it does is Wacky MacM physics. Stop trying to mix your own ideas with relativity. Specify which set of ideas you're using.

Wrong again. You are ignoring physical facts supported by emperical data.

You know there is no empirical data which supports wacky MacM physics. My description is consistent with all available empirical data.

If you acknowledge that the clock is physically ticking more slowly; plus contract the distance then the trip would only require 25% the standard rest calculated view.

Right. And doing that would be applying relativity incorrectly, wouldn't it? So, we are agreed then. Did your post have a point?

MacM:

As usual, you're hopelessly mixing up two different reference frames.

And so are you.

There's no way to know whether a ruler is absolutely at rest or not, so I don't care if it is at rest or not. I'm only worried that the second ruler moves relative to the first one.

Garbage in gabrage out. That sums your post to this point. If the ruler is not at relative rest wrt the end points A and B you have no rest measurement jof distance. Give it a break. Being in disagrement with MacM ios NOT you ticket to higher standing here. Giving rational physics responses is. You should try it.

BTW: Assuming that the first ruler IS at rest wrt the A and B end points of the trip, the second ruler in motion is lorentz contracted by the same ratio as you claim spatial distance is contracted, hence there could be no net measured change in distance by the moving observer.

We agree, in the frame of the first ruler. I am sure we completely disagree about what happens in the other frame.

I suspect you may be correct on this point but are clearly unsupported in your claims about the moving frame. You want to:

1 - Ignore the emperically recorded fact that the moving clock becomes time dilated and declare that based on his clock distance must have changed. Pathetic. And you claim to be a physicist?

2 - You want to disregard the Lorentz Contraction of the second ruler and yet claim spatial contraction so that the moving observer will measure a shorter distance. Just how can you do that with a straight face?

If spartial contraction (distance shortening) actually occurs, then it is clear tha the moving ruler also shortens and would measure the same number of ruler increments in the spatial distance.

To make you claim you must use a ruler based on rest length to measure your distorted and induced spatial contraction by ignoring clock tick rate. You are mixing frames, not I.

In the moving frame, nothing measures shorter. It appears to take less time to make the trip and under those conditions the physics results is that he jwould believe he is travelling faster, not that distance is less.

Get serious and talk physics. Forget the rhetoric and fiat. Forget citing the theory it is full of holes.

I guess you're talking about a ruler of proper length 1 foot. Your statement is incomplete, because you ignore reference frames again. In the frame of the first ruler, a moving ruler of proper length 1 foot will be 6 inches long. In the spaceship frame, the same ruler will be 1 foot long.

I agree. But where you go wrong is the assumption that by ignoring the actual clock tick rate it means distance shortened. I have just pointed out that the moving observer doesn't see object half as far away, he would see himself as traveling twice as fast.

That is the correct physics assumptions under the known physics circumstances.

What is this "spatial dimension" you speak of?

ASurely you jest but oh well. The damn distance between points A and B of the trip.

I'll explain it to you one more time, ok.

If you lay the two rulers (first ruler and spaceship ruler) side by side, and they boh have rest lengths of 1 foot, then:

* in the first ruler's frame, the first ruler will measure the length of the second ruler to be 6 inches, on the first ruler's scale.
* in the spaceship ruler's frame, the spaceship ruler will measure the length of the first ruler to be 6 inches, on the spaceship ruler's scale.

Ah, reciprocity rises it's ugly head once again. This is unsupported assinine BS. Time dilation (even contraction if it were physically real and it isn't) are functions of actual physical motion and not the consequences of some remote observer which has motion. SRT is full of it and you have absolutely NO data to support such assinine claims.

This is NOT what you think, which is that in the first ruler's frame, the second one would be measured as 6 inches on the first scale, and in the second one's frame the first would be measured as 24 inches on the second's scale.

What you are talking about is MacM wacky physics, and pretending it is relativity. You need to learn relativity if you're going to try to criticise it.

No, no. I understand very well lwhat relativity claims. The differance between us is that I know relativity is false and is totally unsupported in this aspect. I know that current emperical evidence supports my view which you chose to deny as a possibility because you chose to have "Faith" in SRT without any evidence or ability to give a ratinal physics principle for it to be as advocated by SRT.

I am free to assess what I see and to make a rational judgement. You are dedicated to a concept which you cannot let go. It has been to much fun to pretend to understand "Counter Intuitive" processes; even though they are in fact physical impossibilities and have never had ONE emperically derived test of support for the concept of reciproicty.

The clock in motion DOES NOT tick slow in its own rest frame. The idea that it does is Wacky MacM physics. Stop trying to mix your own ideas with relativity. Specify which set of ideas you're using.

BS. Do you deny that the clock in motion will physically record less time than the stationary clock? Go ahead, make that statment. The physical fact is it will record less time physically when compared to your stationary clock. So stop all this frame, that frame, dodge the bullet waltz crap.

Does the clock set in motion, making the trip, record less time, yes or no?

Don't come back with some bullshit about it records less time because distance was less because we already know that clocks in motion run slow without any consideration of distance traveled. Or have you forgotten about the good old GPS.

I'll repat for any of those out there listening with open minds. Clocks in motion tick slower. A clock that ticks slower will record less time to make a trip. It has absolutely nothing to do with a physical change in spatial distance by Lorentz Contraction. Spatial Contraction is based on unsupported false assumptions and a willingness to disregard the known physics of time dilation of a moving clock. d = v * t, yields less diatance only because the dilated condition of "t" is disregarded in the calculation.

You know there is no empirical data which supports wacky MacM physics. My description is consistent with all available empirical data.

Wrong. GPS supports my view and destroys yours. Your view is totally wacky, physically impossble and you have not ONE emperical test data which supports the reciprocity advocated and required to make your purely mathematical concept consistant by only disregarding existing known physical facts.

Right. And doing that would be applying relativity incorrectly, wouldn't it? So, we are agreed then. Did your post have a point?

Applying "The Theory" correctly, requires you apply physics "INCORRECTLY".

I chose to accept GPS and sound basic physics and not disregard known conditions of moving clocks and rulers, etc to create a fairy tale. I am content with the fact that my view is consistant in all respects with emperical data and does NOT lead to these unsupported and unsupportable conclusion that your prized theory does.

But go ahead preach away, your time is getting short.

MacM:

You're obviously very confused, poor thing.

Garbage in gabrage out. That sums your post to this point. If the ruler is not at relative rest wrt the end points A and B you have no rest measurement jof distance. Give it a break.

The first ruler is my "rest measurement". Re-read my first post on this topic.

Anyway, now you've introduced points A and B, so let's use them instead. Lt points A and B be 1 lyr apart in the rest frame of the first ruler, and let the spaceship travel from A to B.

Take a very long rope and lay it out from A to B. It will be 1 lyr long in the rest frame of A and B, as measured with the at-rest ruler, and 0.5 lyr long in the spaceship frame as measured with a ruler carried by the spaceship (which is at rest with respect to the spaceship).

BTW: Assuming that the first ruler IS at rest wrt the A and B end points of the trip, the second ruler in motion is lorentz contracted by the same ratio as you claim spatial distance is contracted, hence there could be no net measured change in distance by the moving observer.

In the rest frame of A and B, the rope stretching from A to B is not contracted. Does that rope measure "spatial distance" between A and B, according to you? Yes or no? If it does, then the spatial distance is not contracted. Agree or disagree?

In the spaceship frame, the rope is contracted, according to SRT. Agree or disagree?

Now, I know you don't believe in SRT, so fine. Just don't try to tell me that my description of SRT is wrong.

You want to:

1 - Ignore the emperically recorded fact that the moving clock becomes time dilated and declare that based on his clock distance must have changed.

The only empirical recording of time dilation, you keep saying, is in the "rest frame" - the frame of A and B. You don't have a clue what happens in the spaceship frame, and you have none of your "empirical data" for that frame.

2 - You want to disregard the Lorentz Contraction of the second ruler and yet claim spatial contraction so that the moving observer will measure a shorter distance. Just how can you do that with a straight face?

Two different frames, MacM, remember?

In the spaceship frame, the spaceship ruler is NOT contracted - the rope is.
In the A-B frame, the spaceship ruler IS contracted, and the rope isn't.

I know you disagree, based on your wacky MacM physics, but I'm just telling you what relativity says. At least relativity is self-consistent, which is more than I can say for your bastardised version of it.

If spartial contraction (distance shortening) actually occurs, then it is clear tha the moving ruler also shortens and would measure the same number of ruler increments in the spatial distance.

You're mixing frames. Your "spatial contraction" (contraction of the rope) ONLY occurs in the spaceship frame, and the spaceship ruler contraction only occurs in the A-B frame.

What you are claiming is that the rope AND the spaceship ruler BOTH contract in the same frame, which is just wrong.

I'm sure this is too complex for you to understand, but one has to try.

In the moving frame, nothing measures shorter. It appears to take less time to make the trip and under those conditions the physics results is that he jwould believe he is travelling faster, not that distance is less.

So, let me get this right. In the wacky wacky world of MacM physics, if object X sees object Y as travelling at speed v, object Y sees object X travelling at a GREATER speed?

No reciprocity in MacM fantasy land?

Forget citing the theory it is full of holes.

You have yet to find any.

I agree. But where you go wrong is the assumption that by ignoring the actual clock tick rate it means distance shortened. I have just pointed out that the moving observer doesn't see object half as far away, he would see himself as traveling twice as fast.

And there goes the simple, common-sense concept of velocity "reciprocity", into the MacM ether.

That is the correct physics assumptions under the known physics circumstances.

Known only by MacM, of course.

Ah, reciprocity rises it's ugly head once again. This is unsupported assinine BS.

You've changed your tune. You used to go on about how reciprocity was required but not present. Now you say the whole idea of reciprocity is wrong, and you have a wacky theory which doesn't include even the most basic reciprocity.

Well, MacM, for what it's worth, I think it is YOUR physics which is "assinine BS".

Time dilation (even contraction if it were physically real and it isn't) are functions of actual physical motion and not the consequences of some remote observer which has motion.

If only you had an argument to support that idea.

SRT is full of it and you have absolutely NO data to support such assinine claims.

100 years of experiments don't count? Meh.

No, no. I understand very well lwhat relativity claims.

Don't be silly. Of course you don't.

The differance between us is that I know relativity is false and is totally unsupported in this aspect.

Yeah yeah. The pixies told you, right?

I am free to assess what I see and to make a rational judgement. You are dedicated to a concept which you cannot let go.

Do you really expect me to "let go" of SRT in favour of some inconsistent piece of "assinine BS" like your nutty semi-physics? Give me a break.

BS. Do you deny that the clock in motion will physically record less time than the stationary clock?

When are you comparing the two clocks? At the end of the trip, once the spaceship reaches B, and B decelerates to be at rest relative to the rope? Then, yes, B will have recorded less time than a clock which stayed at A the whole time.

The physical fact is it will record less time physically when compared to your stationary clock.

For "physical time" substitute "proper time", and I agree.

Wrong. GPS supports my view and destroys yours.

Whatever. Come back when you have some evidence to support your claim.

Applying "The Theory" correctly, requires you apply physics "INCORRECTLY".

By "physics", you of course mean "wacky MacM physics". Fine.

I am content with the fact that my view is consistant in all respects with emperical data and does NOT lead to these unsupported and unsupportable conclusion that your prized theory does.

There is no data inconsistent with relativity, and you know it.

MacM:

You're obviously very confused, poor thing.

Good lord. What a load of rhetorical crap and assinine innuendo. I do not have time to continue repeating things just to have you distort what has been correctly pointed out.

This will be my last response to you on this issue unless you post something worthy of rebuttal.

The first ruler is my "rest measurement". Re-read my first post on this topic.

No confusinon there I just pointed out you didn't specifiy in your post that the first ruler was at rest. You would have made a big deal had I done the same. You do it all the time. So expect to be held to the same standard.

Anyway, now you've introduced points A and B, so let's use them instead. Lt points A and B be 1 lyr apart in the rest frame of the first ruler, and let the spaceship travel from A to B.

That is precisely what I did. So lwhy are you repeating it like it is your scenario?

Take a very long rope and lay it out from A to B. It will be 1 lyr long in the rest frame of A and B, as measured with the at-rest ruler, and 0.5 lyr long in the spaceship frame as measured with a ruler carried by the spaceship (which is at rest with respect to the spaceship).

Incorrect. If contraction is physical both the ruler and the distance between A and B contract in direct proportion from the rest view and from the moving view since contraction is not sensed on board the ship, contraction is not computed for space. A physically contracted ruler of 6 inches fits into 0.5 lyr the same number of times as the 12 inch ruler fits into 1 lyr.

The moving observer sees nor measures anything different "Other than that his trip took less time, which causes him to conclude he was traveling faster than viewed by the observer at rest with A and B. That is the correct physics interpretation, not your distorted, disjointed charade of contraction.

In the rest frame of A and B, the rope stretching from A to B is not contracted. Does that rope measure "spatial distance" between A and B, according to you? Yes or no? If it does, then the spatial distance is not contracted. Agree or disagree?

Yep. It is not contracted.

In the spaceship frame, the rope is contracted, according to SRT. Agree or disagree?

According to SRT but the issue is the distortion of known physics to make that declaration. It is not justified.

Now, I know you don't believe in SRT, so fine. Just don't try to tell me that my description of SRT is wrong.

I haven't. I have said SRT is wrong and you are therefore wrong to continue to support it.

The only empirical recording of time dilation, you keep saying, is in the "rest frame" - the frame of A and B. You don't have a clue what happens in the spaceship frame, and you have none of your "empirical data" for that frame.

Wrong. Time dilation of moving clocks has been emperically verified in the rest frame after the fact. Try GPS once more. Are you trying to deny that the moving clock is ticking slower physically? I think not.

Two different frames, MacM, remember?

I remember perfectly. You are the one that seems to forget. You seem to forget that the physical reality is that the clock in motion actually ticked slower and accumulated less time than the rest clock. The simple fact that the moving observer soesn't sense this change in his clock doesn't make it OK to disregard when computing physics.

Even if you disregard the dilated tick rate the correct physics is that the moving observer would calculate his velocity was higher, not that he would see dimension contracted.

In the spaceship frame, the spaceship ruler is NOT contracted - the rope is.

The ruler would be contracted but the observer cannot sense it, just as his clock is ticking slower and he can't sense that. His failure to sense his motion does not mean he IS at rest as acceptaed by SRT.

SRT is completely dependant upon ignoring known physical conditions simply because they are not being sensed. It is absurd physics and does not work and dows not match emperical data.

In the A-B frame, the spaceship ruler IS contracted, and the rope isn't.

I know you disagree, based on your wacky MacM physics, but I'm just telling you what relativity says.

I have no disagreement with what you claim relativity claims. I disagree that that is the correct physics interpretation.

At least relativity is self-consistent, which is more than I can say for your bastardised version of it.

Relativity is consistantly wrong and unsupported in the areas I have pointed out. I am consistantly correct according to emperical data. I say my view is correct and predicts time dilation but no spatial contraction and no reciprocity. Time dilation "Without reciprocity" is the only thing ever recorded, spatial contraction has never been demonstrated. Hmmm.

That certainly suggests I am more correct in terms of physical reality than SR.

You're mixing frames. Your "spatial contraction" (contraction of the rope) ONLY occurs in the spaceship frame, and the spaceship ruler contraction only occurs in the A-B frame.[/qluote]

And you are ignoring physics. Either these are real affects and are physical or they are not and this is all an illusion game. Considering that time dilation is known to physically exists, it rather appears that a one way gamma based on accelerated motion (not relative velocity) exists and that reciprocity and spatial contraction do not.

[quote]What you are claiming is that the rope AND the spaceship ruler BOTH contract in the same frame, which is just wrong.

No, I am claiming that if these are physical affects then they exist even if not sensed by the moving observer. That the view of a remote observer has absolutely no affect on the physics of the moving observer. The absolute view handles all this quiet well relativity does not.

I'm sure this is too complex for you to understand, but one has to try.[/.quote]

And I'm sure it is a piece of cake and you are to dim witted to look past your teachings and recognize true physics and implications of actual data.

[quote]So, let me get this right. In the wacky wacky world of MacM physics, if object X sees object Y as travelling at speed v, object Y sees object X travelling at a GREATER speed?

What? No wonder you are fucked up. At no time have I ever made such a stupid claim. Each sees the other with the same relative velocity. That has always been the case. Try some other diversion.

No reciprocity in MacM fantasy land?

No time reciprocity in the universe. At least none has ever been observed and you have no physical explanation as to how it could exist.

You have yet to find any.

Your continued denials without addressing the issues in physics terms or posting proof of reciprocity, etc, doesn't support your statement.

And there goes the simple, common-sense concept of velocity "reciprocity", into the MacM ether.

I've not said a damn thing about an ether.

Known only by MacM, of course.

Well certainly at least beyond your ability to comprehend and reason.

You've changed your tune. You used to go on about how reciprocity was required but not present. Now you say the whole idea of reciprocity is wrong, and you have a wacky theory which doesn't include even the most basic reciprocity.

Try again. Don't distort my position now or in the past. SRT advocates rewciproicity. It is inherent in the concept. It is unavoidable. Unfortunately it does not exist.

Well, MacM, for what it's worth, I think it is YOUR physics which is "assinine BS".

I really give a rats ass what YOU think. I only care about seeing you or some other smart ass relativist answer these questions with real physics and not some rhetorical dance around the barn.

If only you had an argument to support that idea.

If only you were to listen and then respond to the post and issues raised.

100 years of experiments don't count? Meh.

Name ONE that demonstrates reciprocity or anything more than a one way gamma function. Meh.

Don't be silly. Of course you don't.

If you weren't so apparent you would be funny. Just because you have no physics answers and want to quote theory don't blame me for your failings.

Yeah yeah. The pixies told you, right?

The only pixies I see are in SRT and dancing around in your head.

Do you really expect me to "let go" of SRT in favour of some inconsistent piece of "assinine BS" like your nutty semi-physics? Give me a break.

Be specific please. I have. What is assinine is what SRT advocates and you agree on without a shred of physical evidence or support even after 100 years and the fact that you cannot even give a rational physical explanation as to how such a thing could even be possible.

Nothing I have advocated results in anything which is not in full accord with emperical data nad rational physical consequences. No thanks I would not even consider adopting SR.

When are you comparing the two clocks? At the end of the trip, once the spaceship reaches B, and B decelerates to be at rest relative to the rope? Then, yes, B will have recorded less time than a clock which stayed at A the whole time.

Fine then the reduced trip time has just been explained by known physics of a time dilated clock tick rate and has nothing to do with spatial contraction.

For "physical time" substitute "proper time", and I agree.

Oh so you want to play the reality if variable qame. NONSENSE. Shame on you. The proper time is physical. In the case of the clock in motion the proper time (physical) is that it ticks less that the clock at rest. That is a physical ratio and relationship which cannot be ignored when computing d = v * t. d is physically therefore only defined by d = v * t / tr, where tr is comparative tick rates of the clocks.

Whatever. Come back when you have some evidence to support your claim.

I have and you resort to these little non-responses when cornered on these issues. "Whatever" indeed.

By "physics", you of course mean "wacky MacM physics". Fine.

Well if claiming that the true distance in d = v * t is a function on just how fast the damn clock ticks then yes you can call it MacM's wacky physics.

There is no data inconsistent with relativity, and you know it.

What a joke.

Wake up. If reciprocity were a reality then there would be no systemic recorded time dilation in the first place.

The mere fact that we have abundant examples of recorded time dilation disproves reciprocity. My god man think.

MacM, you've replied to posts from everyone but me.
I already said the 'insult' part was unimportant, and that I was just having some fun.

Why don't you respond to my post, which I've carefully prepared in detail?

MacM, you've replied to posts from everyone but me.
I already said the 'insult' part was unimportant, and that I was just having some fun.

Why don't you respond to my post, which I've carefully prepared in detail?

I have not deliberately ignored your post. If yours has been lost in the rash of relplies I have been making I appologize.

I don't mind some occasional pun but some posters here think when they don't have the physics solution they can just resort to casting innuendo. I don't appreciate that because I want good physics discussion on the subject.

So if you will post a link to the post you think I have ignored I will be glad to respond.

I was referring to the post in this thread (in page 1), giving a reply to your earlier post. And is also contains a link to the length contractino post.

I was referring to the post in this thread (in page 1), giving a reply to your earlier post. And is also contains a link to the length contractino post.

Is this the piece you refer to?
************************************************** *
You've said that when proving length contraction, we're ignoring the 'fact' of 'physical known time dilation'. And then you say that there is an alternative, which is the biased velocity effect that I mentioned earlier. It has to be either one. You alternately refute each, when pointed out. Come on, tell us which one you actually think is true. Length contraction, or biased velocity? Before making up your mind, take a look at the second post in this thread, which does not ignore any time dilation, or assume that each person see the other's clock as dilated:

Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues
************************************************** **

I scanned it and it appears to be nothing more than a recital of SRT. I'll have a slower read but I don't see anything different there than I have seen before as yet.

Rossnet,


Length Contraction- II

The derivation given above makes use of the fact the observer inside the moving train sees the timer of the observer on the ground as being dilated,

1 - You are reciting assumptions not in evidence emperically.

2 - While you do not state it you have not omitted reciprocity as you have claimed. Or are you going to argue that you do not contend that the observer on the embankment also sees the train timer dilated?

3 - You are still referring to "sees" and we are only addressing dilation supported by accumulated time differance between clocks, not illusions of motion or perceptions.


and also that the speed " v " that the ground observer ascribes to the train equals the speed that the observer in the train ascribes to the ground observer.

This fact and the assumptions made in SRT that there is no absolute is what generates reciprocity. Where time dilation (which has been emperically demonstrated) is considered as a function of velocity due to acceleration, only the train timer will be dilated and not the embankment timer. That in fact is the only thing supported by emperical data. The rest is unsupported rhetoric.

Even though these are actual facts, and can be proved as well as verified, a few members here, like MacM, refuse to accept length contraction as a real effect, arguing that reciprocity of time dilation is false,

This is a disjointed comment.

1 - Rejecting length contraction is not based on reciprocity.

2 - As written this statement attempts to link "Facts", "Proved" and "Verified" vs my rejections.

3 - Neither length contraction nor reciprocity have ever been observed or recorded much less proven.

and that the speed which the train observer measures is greater than the speed which the ground observer measures.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

So I'll just provide another derivation which does not make use of either of these facts. This method, however, isn't as intuitional as the other one.

Our old friends, Peter and Paul, from the Twin Paradox, get together again in an attempt to verify Length Contraction. Paul, who went on the trip last time, is already younger than Peter. So they decide that this time, Peter will go, in order that they may get back to being twins. Peter boards a train and accelerates till he almost reaches light speed. After he reaches a uniform speed, he sends out a light ray to the back of the train, from where, after hitting a mirror, it comes back to the front end. If the length of the train is l0, according to Peter, then the light ray will have taken a time of t0=l0/c to go to the back end, and another t0 to return. Hence, 2l0=2ct0. That is, l0 = ct0. Note that in this frame the speed of light is still " c ". This claim is based on the second postulate.

No problem here.

According to Paul, who, as we recall, is standing on the ground, the time in Peter's frame is dilated. But the light ray has the speed " c " itself, in accordance with postulate (ii). The events, as seen by Paul, are shown in the diagram below.

You have just declared reciprocity. The very first statement has the view from the train seeing the ground frame as dilated.

The light ray (Red) sent out from the front of the train (Black) will travel a distance ct1, in time t1. But by this time, the train will have moved forward a distance of vt1. So the distance covered by the ray, as shown in the diagram, is ct1 = l - vt1. The length of the train in this frame of reference is taken as " l ", not " l0 ", because we don't know whether they are equal. Now, t1(c+v) = l. That is, t1 = l/(c+v). Similarly, on the return journey of the ray, it has to travel an extra distance vt2, since the train would've moved forward. Here t2 is the time that the ray takes to get from the back end to the front end. This is shown in the second part of the diagram. The distance, in this case, is ct2 = l + vt2. And t2(c-v) = l, so that t2 = l/(c-v). Thus the total time is

t1 + t2 = l(c+v) + l/(c-v)????????

t1 = l / (c + v)


t1 + t2 = l(c+v+c-v)/[(c+v)(c-v)]
t1 + t2 = 2lc/(c2-v2)

t1 + t2 = 2l/c = 2t0

Since t1 + t2 is the time that elapses in Paul's frame, and the
corresponding time interval in Peter's frame is 2t0, we can use the time dilation equation to say that
t1 + t2 = 2t0(1-v2/c2)-1/2

Since time is the same in each case you should stop here because c = c in each case therefore l = ct in both cases. In the case of the ground view it is the average of [(c + v) + (c - v) ] / 2.

We can further state, from our earlier relation l0 = ct0, that
t1 + t2 = 2(l0/c)(1-v2/c2)-1/2????

Hence, we have,

2lc/(c2-v2) = 2(l0/c)(1-v2/c2)-1/2
l = (l0/c2)(c2-v2)(1-v2/c2)-1/2
l = l0(1-v2/c2)(1-v2/c2)-1/2

l = l0(1-v2/c2)1/2

Using the symbol (gamma)γ = 1/(1-v2/c2)^1/2

I corrected your gamma.

l = l0/γ

Thus we see that the moving train is shorter than the train at rest. And note that we haven't used reciprocity anywhere.

Oh but you did. :eek:

MacM:

Take a very long rope and lay it out from A to B. It will be 1 lyr long in the rest frame of A and B, as measured with the at-rest ruler, and 0.5 lyr long in the spaceship frame as measured with a ruler carried by the spaceship (which is at rest with respect to the spaceship).

Incorrect. If contraction is physical both the ruler and the distance between A and B contract in direct proportion from the rest view and from the moving view since contraction is not sensed on board the ship, contraction is not computed for space.

You are claiming that in the spaceship frame the spaceship's ruler is contracted. That is false, according to relativity.

So, let's be clear that you are not disproving relativity here. You're just citing your own brand of physics.

The moving observer sees nor measures anything different "Other than that his trip took less time, which causes him to conclude he was traveling faster than viewed by the observer at rest with A and B. That is the correct physics interpretation, not your distorted, disjointed charade of contraction.

Again, let's be clear.

You're saying that the spaceship observer thinks he is travelling faster than the ground observer thinks the spaceship is travelling. Relativity would say that the spaceship sees the ground going at the same speed as the ground sees the spaceship going, always.

So, you have again cited either an incorrect version of relativity, or your own wacky physics.

I have said SRT is wrong and you are therefore wrong to continue to support it.

But you can't show any flaw in SRT, so there's no reason to adopt your view.

Are you trying to deny that the moving clock is ticking slower physically?

In which frame?

You seem to forget that the physical reality is that the clock in motion actually ticked slower and accumulated less time than the rest clock.

You are conflating two separate issues here.

Even if you disregard the dilated tick rate the correct physics is that the moving observer would calculate his velocity was higher, not that he would see dimension contracted.

So, in the MacM universe, as I said, velocities are not reciprocal. That doesn't make much sense to me.

The ruler would be contracted but the observer cannot sense it, just as his clock is ticking slower and he can't sense that. His failure to sense his motion does not mean he IS at rest as acceptaed by SRT.

SRT doesn't say he is at rest, since that would imply some kind of absolute reference frame, which doesn't exist in SR.

SRT is completely dependant upon ignoring known physical conditions simply because they are not being sensed. It is absurd physics and does not work and dows not match emperical data.

Which empirical data? You know it matches all empirical data.

I have no disagreement with what you claim relativity claims. I disagree that that is the correct physics interpretation.

I wish that were true, but it isn't. You keep making simple mistakes about what relativity does and does not claim. And you don't listen to corrections.

I really don't care whether you believe in relativity or not, MacM. But I do care when you say relativity dictates this or that, and you're wrong, because that can give other people a perception that there is some kind of problem with relativity, when in fact there is none.

So, let me get this right. In the wacky wacky world of MacM physics, if object X sees object Y as travelling at speed v, object Y sees object X travelling at a GREATER speed?

What? No wonder you are fucked up. At no time have I ever made such a stupid claim. Each sees the other with the same relative velocity. That has always been the case. Try some other diversion.

In the same post, you make this very claim, again. (See my quote of your writing, above.) Your memory is getting shorter all the time.

Fine then the reduced trip time has just been explained by known physics of a time dilated clock tick rate and has nothing to do with spatial contraction.

It has been explained for one frame. Don't you realise there is more than one frame in the universe? It's obvious.

The proper time is physical.

Yes, and so is any other time. It's all physics, MacM.

In the case of the clock in motion the proper time (physical) is that it ticks less that the clock at rest.

Wrong. The proper time for a clock is always the MAXIMUM time it can record for a given spacetime interval. You have it around the wrong way, because you can't keep different frames straight in your head.

Wake up. If reciprocity were a reality then there would be no systemic recorded time dilation in the first place.

This has been explained to you many times. Your memory is fading.

According to Paul, who, as we recall, is standing on the ground, the time in Peter's frame is dilated. But the light ray has the speed " c " itself, in accordance with postulate (ii). The events, as seen by Paul, are shown in the diagram below.
You have just declared reciprocity. The very first statement has the view from the train seeing the ground frame as dilated.
Look again! I never once mentioned what Peter (in the train) would see when he compared clocks. Peter only looks at his own clock, and doesn't have to know what Paul's clock measures. I never said or used the result that Paul's clock would be dilated in Peter's frame (Although this is true). That is irrelevant. It is <I>Paul</I> who looks at both clocks. And since the train is moving, Peter's clock is dilated. So whatever time interval Peter's clok recorded (t<Sub>0</Sub>), in Paul's clock, a greater amount of time would have been recorded (γt<Sub>0</Sub>). I haven't brought in reciprocity here. I've only used the result for time dilation, to which even you agree. This result can be verified after the train stops. Remember? That's what you have been yelling about all this time- 'physical accumulated time'.

You haven't been paying attention. The interval t<Sub>0</Sub> is what <I>Peter's</I> clock registers. But since this clock is <B>running slow</B>, the 'actual' time that elapses would be gamma times that. This is the time that is required for the light ray to go to the back end of the moving train and come back. Which is t<Sub>1</Sub>+t<Sub>2</Sub>, according to Paul's stationary clock. <I>This</I> is how we have the relation:
t<Sub>1</Sub>+t<Sub>2</Sub> = γt<Sub>0</Sub>

And I've fixed the typos.

You are claiming that in the spaceship frame the spaceship's ruler is contracted. That is false, according to relativity.

So, let's be clear that you are not disproving relativity here. You're just citing your own brand of physics.

And you are not talking physics. If length contraction is a physical fact the the spaceship and the ruler are length contracted, even though the pilot does not sense it since everything is contracted by equal amounts.

When you say contracted in this frame but not that frame you cease to be discussing phyics and are then taling about illusions of motion.

Get it straight for once. Are you claiming contraction as a physical reality?

Again, let's be clear.

You're saying that the spaceship observer thinks he is travelling faster than the ground observer thinks the spaceship is travelling. Relativity would say that the spaceship sees the ground going at the same speed as the ground sees the spaceship going, always.

So, you have again cited either an incorrect version of relativity, or your own wacky physics.

And again you have distorted what is being said. I simply pointed out that your assumption about length contraction was not the only alternative conclusion possible that the pilot "Could Calculate" that he was traveling faster. I didn't say a damn thing about seeing himself or the ground moving faster.

But you can't show any flaw in SRT, so there's no reason to adopt your view.

I have but you prefer to distort what has been said and make false claims about the view.

In which frame?

Laughable, absolutely laughable. In which frame indeed. Once again either the clock is time dilated or it is not and jphysical time dilation which results in accumulated differance in time is physical and is real in both frames. It cannot be real in one frame and not exist in the other.

You are conflating two separate issues here.

And you continue to try and dodge the issue. Stick with physical reality and stop[ trying to interject unsupported BS or reciting unsupported theory.

So, in the MacM universe, as I said, velocities are not reciprocal. That doesn't make much sense to me.

To bad but that is the consequence of the dilated clock. Please note I haven't declared any physical reality to that issue only that mathematically "IF you ignore the dilated clocks actual tick rate tehn you would believe either length contracted or velocity increased. TBut the realilty is that the clock IS dilated and neither contraction nor velocity increase are reality. So this situation is NOT in MacM's physics, it is in your physics. So we agree dumpt it. Compensate for the dilated clock and the balance of relativity vanishes.

sn't say he is at rest, since that would imply some kind of absolute reference frame, which doesn't exist in SR.

Horseshit. SRT says either may assume to be at rest. Stop denying what SRT advocates.

Which empirical data? You know it matches all empirical data.

I have not seen any reciprocity data. Please post some so that we can all see that you are right and SRT is validated.

I wish that were true, but it isn't. You keep making simple mistakes about what relativity does and does not claim. And you don't listen to corrections.

LIST what you claim I have claimed that is not so. I will then show you where:

1 - I either never said that or,

2 - I said it is a mathematical alternative to y9our assumption. i.e. different velocity calculation vs length contraction. I say NEITHER are valid.

I really don't care whether you believe in relativity or not, MacM. But I do care when you say relativity dictates this or that, and you're wrong, because that can give other people a perception that there is some kind of problem with relativity, when in fact there is none.

Keep telling yourself that. I will keep posting what I know to be the case. You will not have responded properly to the issue until you post data showing reciprocity or give us an acceptable physical description of just how that is accomplished.

So, let me get this right. In the wacky wacky world of MacM physics, if object X sees object Y as travelling at speed v, object Y sees object X travelling at a GREATER speed?

What? No wonder you are fucked up. At no time have I ever made such a stupid claim. Each sees the other with the same relative velocity. That has always been the case. Try some other diversion.

In the same post, you make this very claim, again. (See my quote of your writing, above.) Your memory is getting shorter all the time.

I have not made that claim. It is your distorted version of what I have said.

It has been explained for one frame. Don't you realise there is more than one frame in the universe? It's obvious.

Your shuffeling from frame to frame is fine. But just stop claiming physical realities in one frame are not real in another frame. Things that are observation do not alter the physics of the frame the events are occuring in. The distorted observation is not physical reality no more than a stick stuck in water appears bent. It is not bent it is only an illusion produced by the different index of the water and air.

Yes, and so is any other time. It's all physics, MacM.

This is where you are totally fucked up. The observation does not alter the physical reality. The physical reality is the local proper time. That is what becomes recorded by the clock. Your distorted observations are not recorded by the clock.

Wrong. The proper time for a clock is always the MAXIMUM time it can record for a given spacetime interval. You have it around the wrong way, because you can't keep different frames straight in your head.

Your repeated attempt to claim I don't understand frames is laughable. I damn well do. It is you that can't seem to learn that an observer in motion has absolutely no affect upon the events being observed and what he sees is a distortion of reality not some different reality.

This has been explained to you many times. Your memory is fading.

You are wearing out this line. It is false, unresponsive and nothing more than an attempt to dodge the bullet.

MacM:

In your last post, you rant and rave, but you just confirm everything I said, rather than showing that something I said is wrong.

And you are not talking physics. If length contraction is a physical fact the the spaceship and the ruler are length contracted, even though the pilot does not sense it since everything is contracted by equal amounts.

Neither the spaceship NOR the spaceship ruler is contracted in the spaceship frame. BOTH are contracted in the ground frame. That is why the spaceship ruler, if used to measure the length of the spaceship, gives the same result as when the spaceship is at rest.

When you say contracted in this frame but not that frame you cease to be discussing phyics and are then taling about illusions of motion.

"Illusions of motion" are part of physics.

Get it straight for once. Are you claiming contraction as a physical reality?

I already told you: spacetime is physical reality. Measuring lengths involves looking at a particular cross-section of that reality. Which cross-section is determined by your reference frame.

If I look at a house from the North, then I look at it from the East, is the house a "physical reality" in both cases? Yes or no? Two different points of view do not alter the reality.

I don't expect you to be able to comprehend this.

I simply pointed out that your assumption about length contraction was not the only alternative conclusion possible that the pilot "Could Calculate" that he was traveling faster. I didn't say a damn thing about seeing himself or the ground moving faster.

So calculations are pie in the sky, according to you? They don't represent anything real. Ok. Well, I've been talking about real physics, MacM. My calculations match reality - otherwise they are useless.

Once again either the clock is time dilated or it is not and jphysical time dilation which results in accumulated differance in time is physical and is real in both frames. It cannot be real in one frame and not exist in the other.

If this was true, then motion would be absolute, and you should be able to point to some absolutely stationary point in the universe. You can't, so your idea must be wrong.

So, in the MacM universe, as I said, velocities are not reciprocal. That doesn't make much sense to me.

To bad but that is the consequence of the dilated clock.

So, are your different velocities real, or an "illusion of motion"? Because I thought you didn't like "illusions of motion". What's the reality?

I have not seen any reciprocity data. Please post some so that we can all see that you are right and SRT is validated.

No need. SRT is validated without that.

You will not have responded properly to the issue until you post data showing reciprocity or give us an acceptable physical description of just how that is accomplished.

No description will ever be "acceptable" to you, MacM, so don't bother lying about it. The only acceptable thing would be for something to prove relativity wrong, and that isn't likely to happen.

Your shuffeling from frame to frame is fine. But just stop claiming physical realities in one frame are not real in another frame.

I never have.

Things that are observation do not alter the physics of the frame the events are occuring in.

Yes they do.

The distorted observation is not physical reality no more than a stick stuck in water appears bent.

I say events in spacetime are real, and spacetime intervals are invariant in all frames. That's very clear.

What's your substituted reality? What is real in wacky MacM physics world? Absolute frames you can't find? Non-reciprocal velocities? Inconsistent time dilations? Non-working GPS systems?

This is where you are totally fucked up. The observation does not alter the physical reality. The physical reality is the local proper time. That is what becomes recorded by the clock.

Only a clock at rest in the relevant frame records local proper time. Any other clock will record a different time. Even you agree on that, since you agree time dilation is real.

It is you that can't seem to learn that an observer in motion has absolutely no affect upon the events being observed and what he sees is a distortion of reality not some different reality.

I have never claimed an observer has any effect on observed events.
I have never claimed there are multiple realities.

Maybe you should re-read some of my posts and work out what relativity actually claims, rather than knocking down these straw men of yours.

MacM:

In your last post, you rant and rave, but you just confirm everything I said, rather than showing that something I said is wrong.

You wish.

Neither the spaceship NOR the spaceship ruler is contracted in the spaceship frame. BOTH are contracted in the ground frame. That is why the spaceship ruler, if used to measure the length of the spaceship, gives the same result as when the spaceship is at rest.

YOu seem to have amemory problem. Your assume things contract because you deliberately ignore the dilated tick rate of the clock in motion. In addition to this fact you seem to exclude the Penrose-TAerrel Rotation which mathematically shows a mere illusion and NO contraction.

In Penrose-Terrel Rotation a sphere moving at relavistic velocities is still a sphere.

"Illusions of motion" are part of physics.

I agree if you choose to refer to perceptions and not claim physical changes.

I already told you: spacetime is physical reality. Measuring lengths involves looking at a particular cross-section of that reality. Which cross-section is determined by your reference frame.

Space-Time is artifically created by ignoring the physically demonstrated fact of time dilation. If time dilation is retained in ones calculations then no contraction occurs.

If I look at a house from the North, then I look at it from the East, is the house a "physical reality" in both cases? Yes or no? Two different points of view do not alter the reality.

Of course the house is real but if you are far enough away the house isn't actually smaller it is an illusion or perception. Same rule your perception does not alter the physical reality.

I don't expect you to be able to comprehend this.

Not only do I comprehend I am well past your apparent ability to think rationally as to what all the evidence actually means. You just suck it up because you are an advid believer.

So calculations are pie in the sky, according to you? They don't represent anything real. Ok. Well, I've been talking about real physics, MacM. My calculations match reality - otherwise they are useless.

Your calculations result in physical nonsense and impossiblities which are not supported by physical evidence.

If this was true, then motion would be absolute, and you should be able to point to some absolutely stationary point in the universe. You can't, so your idea must be wrong.

Motion is absolute and there is no impetus to locate or define the absolute rest point. You assume a position of rest in SRT knowing damn well the object has motion. So there is no differance in assuming absolute motion based on acceleration from "your" inertial rest position. You are blowing smoke where there is no fire.

The absolute assumption is far more correct since it results in the same time dilation without the reciprocity that relative velocity yields.

To bad but that is the consequence of the dilated clock. ”

To bad you lack the comphrension to understand that when two clock move they both dilate according to their respective absolute motion any recorded time dilation between such clocks has to do with the differential in their respective absolute motions, not their relative velocity.

Two clocks co-moving at a uniform veloicty both "Mutually Dilate" and the is no time dilation between them and there is no relative veloicty. Also two clocks equally accelerated from a common rest point to a common ineertial veloicty, even in opposite directions will record NO time dilation between them even though in that case they have relative velocity.

Physics requires a change in energy level via acceleration to affect the clocks proper tick rate, you as an observer having motion has NO impact on the other clocks tick rate.

You are simply wrong and blinded by your belief in relativity.

So, are your different velocities real, or an "illusion of motion"? Because I thought you didn't like "illusions of motion". What's the reality?

The reality is that anything in relative motion likely has absolute veloicty; however, it could be at rest, there is no way of knowing. You can only tell which clock, if either, has a higher veloicty by virtue of it ticking slower than the other clock.

No need. SRT is validated without that.

Goddamn it, that is a flat ass lie. SRT is not validated until what it advocates is demonstrated. The only thing demonstrated has been a one-way gamma dilation of time and that is better explained by absolute motion which prohibits such reciprocity.

No description will ever be "acceptable" to you, MacM, so don't bother lying about it. The only acceptable thing would be for something to prove relativity wrong, and that isn't likely to happen.

We note simply that you have posted innuendo and nothing to support SRT reciprocity.

I never have.

I'll not waste time chasing down threads where yo have because we did that recently and I posted where you have claimed SRT illusions of motion as being physical reality. So stop lying about it.

Yes they do.

Pardon me but you are full of crap. You can salvage your reputation if you post information showing that:

Claock "A" is a stationary referance, clock B has a relative velocity and can be shown to tick slower than A. Those tick rates are physical. Now set clock C in motion and see if the tick rate between A and B changes. I don't think so. So C's motion has no affect on clocks A and B. So prove it or shove it.

I say events in spacetime are real, and spacetime intervals are invariant in all frames. That's very clear.

We all know what you say but some of us know what you say is BS.

What's your substituted reality? What is real in wacky MacM physics world? Absolute frames you can't find?

How about reciprocity you can't find.

Non-reciprocal velocities?

Stuff it. I have noever claimed any such thing. Shame on you for trying to make up shit just to argue. I pointed out that given the scenario you referred to that it was equally valid for the pilot to calculate and conclude his velocity was higher.

Inconsistent time dilations?

What inconsistant time dilations. More fabricated BS?

Non-working GPS systems?

What non-working GPS. 2Inq.... and myself had to bring the facts to yours and others attention. The fact is GPS functions on the velocity of orbit and not relative velocity between a surface clock and orbit. The relative velocity calculation yields an incorrect time dilation. SRT is false. Live with it.

What a joke.

You are the joke. You seem to have reached a point where all you can do is distort what has been said and/or simply fabricate things which have never been said just to post what looks like stupidity.

Only a clock at rest in the relevant frame records local proper time. Any other clock will record a different time. Even you agree on that, since you agree time dilation is real.

Correct however you seem to continue to extrapolate that into assumptions which are not fact.

I have never claimed an observer has any effect on observed events.
I have never claimed there are multiple realities.

That is the consequence of your claims that SRT is valid. Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either motion of an observer affects the other clock or what you have been advocating is outright false.

Maybe you should re-read some of my posts and work out what relativity actually claims, rather than knocking down these straw men of yours.

And maybe you should actually post supporting data for your claim that SRT reciprocity is valid.

MacM:

More ranting and raving from you, and still no substance.

In addition to this fact you seem to exclude the Penrose-TAerrel Rotation which mathematically shows a mere illusion and NO contraction.

I don't think you know what Penrose-Terrel rotation is. It's just a new buzz word you've just heard for the first time recently.

In Penrose-Terrel Rotation a sphere moving at relavistic velocities is still a sphere.

No, it isn't. Maybe you should do some more reading before you bandy your new word around.

Space-Time is artifically created by ignoring the physically demonstrated fact of time dilation.

So, there's no spacetime in the MacM universe. Ok. It just gets more and more wacky, doesn't it?

Motion is absolute and there is no impetus to locate or define the absolute rest point.

Really? I would think that's the FIRST thing somebody who believed in an absolute rest point would want to do. I guess you just lack imagination.

You assume a position of rest in SRT knowing damn well the object has motion.

Never. I claim you can't know whether something is at rest or moving, absolutely. Understand?

To bad but that is the consequence of the dilated clock.

To bad you lack the comphrension to understand that when two clock move they both dilate according to their respective absolute motion any recorded time dilation between such clocks has to do with the differential in their respective absolute motions, not their relative velocity.

Are you arguing against yourself, now? Note that YOU wrote the first quote here, not me.

Two clocks co-moving at a uniform veloicty both "Mutually Dilate" and the is no time dilation between them and there is no relative veloicty. Also two clocks equally accelerated from a common rest point to a common ineertial veloicty, even in opposite directions will record NO time dilation between them even though in that case they have relative velocity.

You're just asserting this without any proof or support. Keep wishing, MacM.

Physics requires a change in energy level via acceleration to affect the clocks proper tick rate, you as an observer having motion has NO impact on the other clocks tick rate.

Please give your equation for the change in "energy level".

(BTW: "energy level" of what?)

The reality is that anything in relative motion likely has absolute veloicty

What if it has no motion relative to the "absolute rest point" (wherever that may be)?

You can only tell which clock, if either, has a higher veloicty by virtue of it ticking slower than the other clock.

Finally, you and relativity agree.

I say events in spacetime are real, and spacetime intervals are invariant in all frames. That's very clear.

We all know what you say but some of us know what you say is BS.

So, prove I'm wrong. Show why it's BS, if you can.

You're all bluff and bluster, never any substance.

Non-reciprocal velocities?

Stuff it. I have noever claimed any such thing. Shame on you for trying to make up shit just to argue.

Just read a couple of posts further up the thread, MacM. It's there for all to read. Your memory is fading.

What a joke.

You are the joke. You seem to have reached a point where all you can do is distort what has been said and/or simply fabricate things which have never been said just to post what looks like stupidity.

You're talking to yourself again. You wrote "what a joke", not me. Remember? You're really losing it.

Sorry you cannot have it both ways. Either motion of an observer affects the other clock or what you have been advocating is outright false.

Motion affects the other clock, then.

MacM:

More ranting and raving from you, and still no substance.

If you are incapable of responding in physics terms why do you bother to post at all. Your little ill thought out innuendos gain you nothing.

I don't think you know what Penrose-Terrel rotation is.

And I don't think what you think means jack shit.

It's just a new buzz word you've just heard for the first time recently.

Considering I have posted on this subject at least a year ago, your comments are proven to be more bullshit.

No, it isn't. Maybe you should do some more reading before you bandy your new word around.

I'll be back and post info that shows you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Here it is:

************************************************** *******
http://www2.corepower.com:8080/~relfaq/penrose.html

Well-known facts from complex analysis now tell us two things. First, circles go to circles under the pixel mapping, so a sphere will always photograph as a sphere. ************************************************** ******

I just hope people notice you frequently post BS.

So, there's no spacetime in the MacM universe. Ok. It just gets more and more wacky, doesn't it?

Actually it gets more and more correct in terms of emperical data. But since you never take a serious look at facts but favor rhetoric you are ignorant as to the advantages of the absolute view.

Really? I would think that's the FIRST thing somebody who believed in an absolute rest point would want to do. I guess you just lack imagination.

And I guess it is a matter of understanding that it would be impossible to determine such a point, at least with todays technology. Further an intelligent person would know that there is no reason to identify such a point. All known functions seem to be based on veloicties resulting from acceleration.

Unlike your relativity the only veloicty that counts is one induced by ACTUAL acceleration, not as a result of some observers view due to their velocity component. But having physics function from real physical basis is to complicated for you I know.

Never. I claim you can't know whether something is at rest or moving, absolutely. Understand?

The only case where something isn't moving would be if it accelerated (decelerated) to make it at absolute rest and that point would be indistinguisable from any other inertial veloicty.

However, sticking your head in the sand and disregarding the change in inertial velocity due to acceleration and not recognizing that as an energy change is simply....Well ignorant.

Are you arguing against yourself, now? Note that YOU wrote the first quote here, not me.

Not hardely. You may have miss typed a quote in your prior response. What don't have a comment regarding the issue.?

You're just asserting this without any proof or support. Keep wishing, MacM.

I don't see this as a physics response and FYI, it is SRT that makes assumptions and assertions with no basis or support. My view is supported by the functioning of GPS, yours is not.

Please give your equation for the change in "energy level".

No equations required. I have only commented on the physical facts. Absolute energy would be based on absolute veloicty, such data is not available. Change in energy is already mathematically formulated. Thought you knew physics.

(BTW: "energy level" of what?)

Of whatever you are monitoring.

What if it has no motion relative to the "absolute rest point" (wherever that may be)?

It would be the fastest ticking clock ever recorded but you would not know if another ticked faster elsewhere.

Finally, you and relativity agree.

Everything I have said agrees with emperical data. SRT does not.

So, prove I'm wrong. Show why it's BS, if you can.

I have numerous times but you shy away from directly answering in physics terms and resort to rhetoric, distortion or innuendo.

You're all bluff and bluster, never any substance.

Look in a mirrow.

Just read a couple of posts further up the thread, MacM. It's there for all to read. Your memory is fading.

I am not responsible for your inability to comprehend english. I have said clearly that spatial length contraction is BS (does not exist as advocated by SRT). Likewise as an alternative to contraction as a conclusion to ignoring time dilation of the moving clock such veloicty calculation would also be BS.

I have not said it exists. I have said it and contraction DO NOT EXIST but mathematically it is an alternative to the contraction issue. Keep in mind this is only a calculation and if you have identical recording devices at each clock and subsequently played the videos side by side you would seed that each sees the same veloicty but mathematical would calculate a different one.

Now lets see you refute the truth of this fact and stop just talking BS.

You're talking to yourself again. You wrote "what a joke", not me. Remember? You're really losing it.

Perhaps some quotes have gotten screwed up here but that isn't addressing the issue is it.

Motion affects the other clock, then.

Fine. Prove it. Stipulate physically just how an observers velocity to another clock changes that clocks proper tick rate. Go ahead smart ass.

JamesR,

No offense, but can you stay out of this thread for a little while only? MacM isn't even noticing my posts. Just for a while, please.

JamesR,

No offense, but can you stay out of this thread for a little while only? MacM isn't even noticing my posts. Just for a while, please.

Just what post have I missed? I haven't ignored any.

My reply to your post about Lenngth contraction. A small one.

Look again! I never once mentioned what Peter (in the train) would see when he compared clocks. Peter only looks at his own clock, and doesn't have to know what Paul's clock measures. I never said or used the result that Paul's clock would be dilated in Peter's frame (Although this is true). That is irrelevant. It is <I>Paul</I> who looks at both clocks. And since the train is moving, Peter's clock is dilated. So whatever time interval Peter's clok recorded (t<Sub>0</Sub>), in Paul's clock, a greater amount of time would have been recorded (γt<Sub>0</Sub>). I haven't brought in reciprocity here. I've only used the result for time dilation, to which even you agree. This result can be verified after the train stops. Remember? That's what you have been yelling about all this time- 'physical accumulated time'.

Oh REALLY?:



The derivation given above makes use of the fact the observer inside the moving train sees the timer of the observer on the ground as being dilated,

Now technically you never said "Peter" in this statement but you had already named Peter as being the person in the train.

According to Paul, who, as we recall, is standing on the ground, the time in Peter's frame is dilated.

Now you clearly are declaring reciprocity. Do not deny what you wrote.

Rosnet:

Ok. I'm out. There's nothing of substance in MacM's last response to me which requires a response, anyway.

The derivation given above makes use of the fact the observer inside the moving train sees the timer of the observer on the ground as being dilated,

Now technically you never said "Peter" in this statement but you had already named Peter as being the person in the train.
According to Paul, who, as we recall, is standing on the ground, the time in Peter's frame is dilated.
Now you clearly are declaring reciprocity. Do not deny what you wrote
I said the derivation <B>above</B>, budhead. That was the first one. Where