The following are MacM's idea about Lorentz's Contraction Paradox:


Lets put some numbers on the table:

Assume c = 3E8 m/sec
V1 = 0.9999999 c = 2.99999970E8 m/sec and,
V2 = 0.99999999 c = 2.99999997E8 m/sec

Gamma 1 = 4.47213595E-4
Gamma 2 = 1.41421356E-4

That is a ratio of Gamma 2/ Gamma 1 = 0.3162277658

The difference in velocity is only 27 m/sec.

If I therefore accelerate 54 m/sec for one sec I will have a velocity increase stipulated between V1 and V2.

Assuming my distance from earth was 10 B Ly at V1 (that includes contraction) I would see earth as (3.162277658 B Ly + 1 L sec) away when I reach V2. That is a spatial decrease of 6.837722342 B Ly decrease in 1 sec.

Now I already know you will scream "Time Dilation". Go ahead, at V2 time dilation is such that 1 sec is actually 7,071 seconds earth time. So while I shouldn't I'll give you time dilation and still claim that if spatial contraction in Relativity is as you claim then in one second (or 7,071 seconds) moving AWAY from earth I would see earth move CLOSER by 967,009 Lyr!!!



The following are my comments on his idea:


Error #1:
You said gamma1 and gamma2. Although not crucial, gamma in SR always larger than 1 (yours is inverse gamma). The space shinking because your speed increase from V1 to V2 is not computed based on ratio of gamma times 10 billions Ly. It should be computed by multiplying 10 billions Ly with [(4.47213595E-4)-(1.41421356E-4)] = about 3000,000 Ly.

Error #2:
V1 and V2 are your velocities relative to earth. When you increase your velocity by 27m/s (in your reference frame moving at velocity V1), it increases velocity relative to earth by only...OMG, it's too small to be computed using my 10 digits calculator.


Note:
MacM redefined gamma as (1-v²/c²)^1/2, unlike commonly accepted definition 1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2. However, I will adopt his definition. I realised that figure given by MacM are not suitable for SR, however, I will still adopt his figures.

Problem #1

When I made the above comment, I thought 10 billions Ly mentioned by MacM was as per earth observer, because I believe that from earth observer's perspective, the whole universe is only measuring not more than 15 billions Ly (MacM knew about this). Later, MacM informed me that the 10 billions Ly was indeed as viewed by observer moving at velocity V1=0.9999999c. For that, Error #1, shall be recomputed as follows:

The different of earth-ship distance, <font face=symbol>D</font>L = 10 billions Ly - L*gamma2, where L is distance according to earth observer.

L = 10 billions/gamma1 = 10,000,000,000/0.0004472 = 22,360 billions Ly (about 1,500 times of commonly accepted universe size).

Therefore: <font face=symbol>D</font>L = 10 billions Ly - 22,360 billions Ly *0.0001414 = 3.162 billions Ly. MacM correct.

However, the given figure still unacceptable. How could L exceeds the size of universe by 1,500 times! MacM knew about this. I must say, he is a smart guy, he knew a lot of things. Then why he made exercise that involving dimension so huge? I found later that the reason he didn't feel such huge demension disturbing was because he knew that SR indeed incorrect about Lorentz's contraction. He claimed that earth observer would see that 10 billions Ly (according to V1 observer) as 10 billions Ly too. I never satisfied with this, particularly he also mentioned that the 10 billions Ly is inclusive of contraction. You bet, I don't know what he really mean.

MacM: How did you come out with your equation for computing <font face=symbol>D</font>L that does not involve immposible size of universe, implicitly or explicitly?

Problem #2

MacM claimed that the rocket velocity increase from V1=0.9999999c to V2=0.99999999c is achievable by 54m/s² of acceleration in one second. I said, that's immposible. V1 and V2 are velocities as per earth observer or earth reverse velocity as per rocket observer. In SR, velocity of rocket according to earth observer is the same as earth velocity according to rocket observer. MacM's relativity (MR) also says the same thing. However, according to MR, increasing velocity in V1 reference frame by 54m/s would increase velocity relative to earth by exactly the same amount. This is not true in SR, although true in MacM's relativity!

Earlier I have computed that, to achieve velocity V2, the rocket has to increase velocity from V1 by u=0.8c. MacM did not believe this calculation as correct, since he believed that SR's addition of velocities is wrong and also not applicable for this exercise. Most of all, he doesn't believe me, as he believe he comprehends relativity much better than I do.

I'll compute by approximation how much time required in V1 reference frame to increase velocity by 0.8c by acceleration of 54m/s².

For approximation, I will just use v = at formulae; t = 0.8 x 300,000,000/54/3600/24 = 51 days. Consideration of relativistic effect (since 0.8c is relatively high) would give us t larger than 51 days. Exactly how many days?

I'll use relativistic rocket equation in this link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

The rocket equation in the above link assumes that the rocket start from earth V=0, accelerating at constant rate.

v = c tanh (aT/c)

a=54m/s²
c=300,000,000m/s

for V1=0.9999999c, I obtained T=46,697,896 seconds
for V2=0.99999999c, I obtained T=53,093,966 seconds

Hence, the difference is: 6,396,070 seconds or 74 days.

Again, it shows that MacM's claim that his rocket could achieve V2 in one second is not correct.

MacM: Please supply your version of computation to justify your claim that the rocket velocity could increase from V1 to V2 by only 54m/s² of acceleration in just one second.

Note: Computation using relativistic rocket formula and my above appoximation method are not exactly the same, since the later does not considering the rocket time before it reach velocity V1. -- Added for clarification.

READERS:

I have already advised Mr. Paul T that I will not respond directly to him until he admits his gross errors.

James R., is currently considering our arguement and I will post his findings, whatever they are, but in the intrim I will just make a few specific corrections to his distorted view of the events.

The purpose of this thread was to highlite the paradox of objects appearing to be coming closer at FTL velocities when one applies Relativity at relavistic velocities away from the object. It was not intended to be in anyway considered a real life situation.

Posted by MacM:Assume c = 3E8 m/sec
V1 = 0.9999999 c = 2.99999970E8 m/sec and,
V2 = 0.99999999 c = 2.99999997E8 m/sec

Gamma 1 = 4.47213595E-4
Gamma 2 = 1.41421356E-4

That is a ratio of Gamma 2/ Gamma 1 = 0.3162277658

The difference in velocity is only 27 m/sec.

If I therefore accelerate 54 m/sec for one sec I will have a velocity increase stipulated between V1 and V2.

Assuming my distance from earth was 10 B Ly at V1 (that includes contraction) I would see earth as (3.162277658 B Ly + 1 L sec) away when I reach V2. That is a spatial decrease of 6.837722342 B Ly decrease in 1 sec.

Now I already know you will scream "Time Dilation". Go ahead, at V2 time dilation is such that 1 sec is actually 7,071 seconds earth time. So while I shouldn't I'll give you time dilation and still claim that if spatial contraction in Relativity is as you claim then in one second (or 7,071 seconds) moving AWAY from earth I would see earth move CLOSER by 967,009 Lyr!!!"


The following are my comments on his idea:

“ Originally Posted by Paul T

Error #1:
You said gamma1 and gamma2. Although not crucial, gamma in SR always larger than 1 (yours is inverse gamma). The space shinking because your speed increase from V1 to V2 is not computed based on ratio of gamma times 10 billions Ly. It should be computed by multiplying 10 billions Ly with [(4.47213595E-4)-(1.41421356E-4)] = about 3000,000 Ly.

Error #2:
V1 and V2 are your velocities relative to earth. When you increase your velocity by 27m/s (in your reference frame moving at velocity V1), it increases velocity relative to earth by only...OMG, it's too small to be computed using my 10 digits calculator. ”

Note:
MacM redefined gamma as (1-v2/c2)1/2, unlike commonly accepted definition 1/(1-v2/c2)1/2. However, I will adopt his definition. I realised that figure given by MacM are not suitable for SR, however, I will still adopt his figures.

Problem #1

When I made the above comment, I thought 10 billions Ly mentioned by MacM was as per earth observer, because I believe that from earth observer's perspective, the whole universe is only measuring not more than 15 billions Ly (MacM knew about this). Later, MacM informed me that the 10 billions Ly was indeed as viewed by observer moving at velocity V1=0.9999999c. For that, Error #1, shall be recomputed as follows:

The different of earth-ship distance, DL = 10 billions Ly - L*gamma2, where L is distance according to earth observer.

L = 10 billions/gamma1 = 10,000,000,000/0.0004472 = 22,360 billions Ly (about 1,500 times of commonly accepted universe size).

Therefore: DL = 10 billions Ly - 22,360 billions Ly *0.0001414 = 3.162 billions Ly. MacM correct

However, the given figure still unacceptable. How could L exceeds the size of universe by 1,500 times! MacM knew about this. I must say, he is a smart guy, he knew a lot of things. Then why he made exercise that involving dimension so huge? I found later that the reason he didn't feel such huge demension disturbing was because he knew that SR indeed incorrect about Lorentz's contraction. He claimed that earth observer would see that 10 billions Ly (according to V1 observer) as 10 billions Ly too. I never satisfied with this, particularly he also mentioned that the 10 billions Ly is inclusive of contraction. You bet, I don't know what he really mean.

MacM: How did you come out with your equation for computing DL that does not involve immposible size of universe, implicitly or explicitly?


Note: Posted by MacM:
Error#1: He is correct when he claims I used inverse gamma as gamma. That is indeed a technical point but it was not an error, I still used it properly. For me it is a form of short hand to not write the inverse of something when I can choose to multiply instead of divide. The application is made in the correct direction for the calculation and the results are the same.

In a quick step presentation I first thought that by making the dimension 10 B Ly including Gamma 1, 10 B Ly becomes "1" and Gamma2/Gamma1 would show the proportional change in dimension. That still seems logical to me but I would have to actually run some numbers and see if that works. However, it doesn't alter the consequences of the sought after affect in any case.

Error #2:His conclusion makes no sense. V1 and V2 are the same for both the earth observer and the rocket. Otherwise you wouldn't have Relative velocity. This is not a velocity addition case. It is straight stipulated "Relative Velocity" which means the velocity is the same for both observers! Therefore 27 m/sec differential and the required acceleration to go from V1 to V2 is the same in either frame. Remember the rule" Physics are the same in any frame of reference.

Problem #1: First note that my computation was correct. But then he wants to get esoteric and argue realities.

1 - Nobody knows how large the universe is. The generally accepted number is 13 - 15 B Ly. But that is only the observed matter universe. We certainly have not seen a sign posted that says "You have reached the end of the universe go back".

2 - Many here (and perhaps Paul T, like to argue that the universe is "Infinite". Now this arguement. It is a strawman.

3 - As I have said I picked 10 B Ly because it was a very large, even number, which would emphasize my point. There is and was no reason to select any particular number based on current unknowns.

4 - The most recent study I have seen referenced has just increased the estimated size to 156 B Ly. So Paul is already off by a factor of 10 or more.

5 - Not that it has any bearing on this thread or on physics at large, I personally want to make it a matter of record (since I believe the mathematics will soon support my prori prediction) The size of the time-space universe will be on the order of 1E14 Ly.

6 - He miss quoted me. What I have said is that either both the rocket and earth observers see spatial contraction or neither do. I have yet to see him justify his claim that under simple "Relative Motion" where both are subject to the same relative velocity and the same gamma calculation, that one will see contraction and the other doesn't. For my personal belief I don't think either will see spatial contraction in accordance with Relativity. Contraction of physical objects, yes but not space.

Posted by Paul T:

Problem #2

MacM claimed that the rocket velocity increase from V1=0.9999999c to V2=0.99999999c is achievable by 54m/s2 of acceleration in one second. I said, that's immposible. V1 and V2 are velocities as per earth observer or earth reverse velocity as per rocket observer. In SR, velocity of rocket according to earth observer is the same as earth velocity according to rocket observer. MacM's relativity (MR) also says the same thing. However, according to MR, increasing velocity in V1 reference frame by 54m/s would increase velocity relative to earth by exactly the same amount. This is not true in SR, although true in MacM's relativity!

Posted by MacM:That would clearly make SR false. To suggest that physics is different in different reference frames violates a basic premis. He has said that V1 and V2 are the same in both frames but he wants to claim there is a difference in acceleration required to go from one velocity to the other when both frames have the same relative velocities. Makes no sense what-so-ever.

Posted by Paul T: Earlier I have computed that, to achieve velocity V2, the rocket has to increase velocity from V1 by u=0.8c. MacM did not believe this calculation as correct, since he believed that SR's addition of velocities is wrong and also not applicable for this exercise. Most of all, he doesn't believe me, as he believe he comprehends relativity much better than I do.

Posted by MacM:I do indeed believe the velocity addition formula is wrong but that is not the issue here. We have a case of one observer assumed at rest. Another observer that has two different velocities at two different time. V1 and V2 are one observer and the velocities are not simultaneous. It is inappropriate and in error to use "Velocity Addition" in such a case. You do not have three simultaneous frames. You only have two frames and two seperate calculations. You cannot combine the non-relative velocities (velocities that occured at different times) using the velocity addition formula. As to who actually understands relativity best I think you are helping make that clear. Thanks.

Posted by Paul T: I'll compute by approximation how much time required in V1 reference frame to increase velocity by 0.8c by acceleration of 54m/s2.

For approximation, I will just use v = at formulae; t = 0.8 x 300,000,000/54/3600/24 = 51 days. Consideration of relativistic effect (since 0.8c is relatively high) would give us t larger than 51 days. Exactly how many days?

I'll use relativistic rocket equation in this link: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physi.../SR/rocket.html

The rocket equation in the above link assumes that the rocket start from earth V=0, accelerating at constant rate.

v = c tanh (aT/c)

a=54m/s2
c=300,000,000m/s

for V1=0.9999999c, I obtained T=46,697,896 seconds
for V2=0.99999999c, I obtained T=53,093,966 seconds

Hence, the difference is: 6,396,070 seconds or 74 days.

Again, it shows that MacM's claim that his rocket could achieve V2 in one second is not correct.

MacM: Please supply your version of computation to justify your claim that the rocket velocity could increase from V1 to V2 by only 54m/s2 of acceleration in just one second.

Posted by MacM:Now why on earth would you want to switch frames to introduce time dilation. If you recall I even suggested you could do that but to do so did not alter the outcome of the exercise. So what is your point. I made it known that I understood that the accelertion rate would appear diifferent in different frames. But from the perspective of the pilot seeing contracton due to acceleration it is still one second. That is the only view that counts in the contraction example.

I can't tell if you are really that confused or you are just trying to confuse others to attempt to phoo phoo me. But you have done a horrible job of it in either case. James R., has already concurred that my paradox would occur. That was the purpose of my thread and the end of this thread for me. Go pat yourself on the back undeservingly and go ahead and make stupid statements about me. I think it is clear which one of us has a better grip.

READERS:

Posted by MacM: If at v = c space becomes "zero" then objects approaching v = c should appear to be many multiples of c in the wrong direction. That is an object going from 99.99999999% c to 99.999999999% c in one hour (for general example without computing the gamma function) would appear to have moved 10 B Ly in a matter of an hour.


Posted by James R: "So, to the rocket, the Earth appears to have come closer to the rocket, even though the rocket has been accelerating away from Earth."

Posted by Paul T:" What James R think (or anybody else) is not in no way affecting my thought, unless he or anybody else prove me wrong. I don't see your paradox yet."


Come on Paul you are already out voted 2/1. :D

Do any two events have a space-time separation that is frame invariant?
What are the units of this separation?

READERS:

Posted by MacM:“ Can you comment yet on the velocity addition situation? ”


Posted by James R.: "I don't see how it is relevant. I will wait for Paul T to explain, if he wishes."

Posted by Paul T: "
I wrote something about the connection of SR addition of velocities to the problem under "MacM's Exercise" thread. Anyway, I'll explain it again later under this thread if need be. "

A little hesitant to make a simple, clear statement about the applicability of VA I see. Hmmm.


Posted by James R:

"Using my example above...

Rocket:
Delta v = (0.9 - 0.8)c = 0.1c, T = something greater than 1 second.
Calculated acceleration = less than 0.1c per second.

Earth: Delta v = (0.9 - 0.8)c = 0.1 c, T = 1 second.
Calculated acceleration = 0.1 c per second.


Nothing signifigant here, especially since I specified that there would be differences due to time dilation by each observer.

Do any two events have a space-time separation that is frame invariant?
What are the units of this separation?

I've just refreshed my memory on spacetime interval.

The quantity (ct)² - x² - y² - z² is invariant under the Lorentz transform.

Simply speaking, and in straight-line scenarios, this simply means that any two events have an invariant spacetime separation, calculated by:
&radic;(c²t² - s²)

Where t is the time between the two events and s is the distance between them.

Although both t and s are different in different reference frames, the spacetime separation is constant.

It seems to me that it is useless trying to resolve some "paradox" about inherently variant quantities (distance and time).


Maybe distance and time are illusions?
If spacetime interval is real, then are distance and time simply one-eyed perspectives of spacetime?

Pete,

Although both t and s are different in different reference frames, the spacetime separation is constant.

Thank you Pete. Excellent post, most informative. Does not the above however appear a bit strange?

That is if I declare a particular situation to show time dilation (decrease) then that would mean a distance "Increase" to keep st constant?

Also since neither observer sees his time as dilated it would mean that neither see spatial contraction. It also means that they each see the others clocks dilated by the same amounts hence the same amount of "Dimensional Expansion"?????

Unless I have misunderstood your post you have made my day. :D

Since Crisp has already posted before I could correct this I'll leave it and clarify.

My first reaction was that Pete had made an error, which is why I called it strange. The fact is Pete's post is fine and I mistook time dilation as being smaller time and it is smaller time rate which equates to longer time and hence shorter space. So the function is still contraction with velocity.

PS: Another excellent comment Posted by Paul T: "Your idea that earth and rocket observers must both see contraction of their separation is a absolute delusional. "


HeHeHe

Pete,

Thank you Pete. Excellent post, most informative. Does not the above however appear a bit strange?


No it is not strange. This is basic SR.




That is if I declare a particular situation to show time dilation (decrease) then that would mean a distance "Increase" to keep st constant?





Also since neither observer sees his time as dilated it would mean that neither see spatial contraction. It also means that they each see the others clocks dilated by the same amounts hence the same amount of "Dimensional Expansion"?????

No


Unless I have misunderstood your post you have made my day. :D

You have misunderstood.
But I must admit that you made my day, since for the last few months that I read and write in this forum, you claim that you studied SR. By your remark about not knowing that the interval must be invariant under Lorentz transformation, you just proved that you do not understand SR.


HeHeHe
HeHeHe²

Pete.

Maybe distance and time are illusions?
If spacetime interval is real, then are distance and time simply one-eyed perspectives of spacetime?

It has been my contention and I have said it here before many times, time is illusional. The property of energy flow causing change percieved as events which as that information flows to us is percieved as a flow of time by our consciousness but time is not an enity or a 4th dimension as in the current view.

That is we live in a "Static Time" energy driven "Dynamic Present" comprised of only "Past Events" due to flow of energy and change. Movement of our ordinate point in creation therefore shifts the sequence of events which comprise our dynamic present and actually causes us to enter both the Past and Future simultaneously relative to our original ordinate point.

In my view the only means of traveling back in time would be to reverse the flow of energy throughout the entire universe.

1100f,


No it is not strange. This is basic SR.[/b][quote]

So you are claiming that you knew that space didn't contract but expanded when one sees time dilation? Wonder why you haven't spoken out before?

[quote]No

Please, explain your response. If s * t is invariant and t is dilated then s must expand. See above correction. s contracts with velocity.

If each observer sees the others clock running slow (which is the claim) then each will also have to see the same amount of expansion. Ditto on correction.

You have misunderstood.
But I must admit that you made my day, since for the last few months that I read and write in this forum, you claim that you studied SR. By your remark about not knowing that the interval must be invariant under Lorentz transformation, you just proved that you do not understand SR.

You are mixing apples and oranges here and getting lemonaid. I have been arguing against the standard presentation of spatial contraction and thus far it appears I was right. My correction above does not alter this statement.

HeHeHe3

Please, explain your response. If s * t is invariant and t is dilated then s must expand.

Where does it say that ? It says:

(ct)² - x² - y² - z² = (ct)² - s²

is invariant, not s*t.

Crisp,

Where does it say that ? It says:

(ct)2 - x2 - y2 - z2 = (ct)2 - s2

is invariant, not s*t.

My post was in response to Pete's text.

*****************************************
Posted by Pete:

"Although both t and s are different in different reference frames, the spacetime separation is constant.

It seems to me that it is useless trying to resolve some "paradox" about inherently variant quantities (distance and time).

Maybe distance and time are illusions?
If spacetime interval is real, then are distance and time simply one-eyed perspectives of spacetime?
******************************************

In accordance with that statement s*t = a constant.

Crisp,



My post was in response to Pete's text.

*****************************************
Posted by Pete:

"Although both t and s are different in different reference frames, the spacetime separation is constant.

It seems to me that it is useless trying to resolve some "paradox" about inherently variant quantities (distance and time).

Maybe distance and time are illusions?
If spacetime interval is real, then are distance and time simply one-eyed perspectives of spacetime?
******************************************

In accordance with that statement s*t = a constant.
All the people here that know SR, understood exactly what Pete meant when he said that the spacetime separation is invariant.
The fact that you understood it as space*time is the naked truth about your understanding of relativity. :D :D

Your mistake is equivalent to the mistake of writting that tan(x) = in(x)/co(x), after cancelling the s of the sine and the cosine.

Anyway, I think that not only you made my day, but for many other people here. :D


BTW. I read about someone that have found flaws in Newton's second law F = ma. The flaw is the following: If your mother is dead, you cannot write that F = ma for you, since ma is dead. Because of this flaw, he has written a new theory. Should I bother reading his theory?

MacM,


I have already advised Mr. Paul T that I will not respond directly to him until he admits his gross errors.


Hahaha. Are you scare, MacM?? To be honest, I have no fundamental error to admit. I did make a few small mistakes, some misinterpretation, some numerical error...just being a human. Other than that, I have nothing BIG to admit. However, you are welcome to show me my errors.


James R., is currently considering our arguement and I will post his findings, whatever they are, but in the intrim I will just make a few specific corrections to his distorted view of the events.


This is a proof that you don't know what you were talking about. You need others to support you. From what I see, James standing is just opposite of you. You won't get his support. So, now get ready to defend your own argument all by yourself.


Note: Posted by MacM:
Error#1: He is correct when he claims I used inverse gamma as gamma. That is indeed a technical point but it was not an error, I still used it properly. For me it is a form of short hand to not write the inverse of something when I can choose to multiply instead of divide. The application is made in the correct direction for the calculation and the results are the same.


But, it is still a proof that you don't understand relativity, since you used your own convention.


In a quick step presentation I first thought that by making the dimension 10 B Ly including Gamma 1, 10 B Ly becomes "1" and Gamma2/Gamma1 would show the proportional change in dimension. That still seems logical to me but I would have to actually run some numbers and see if that works. However, it doesn't alter the consequences of the sought after affect in any case.


Unknown to you, picking up 10 billions Ly in V1 reference frame resulting earth observer would observe the distance as, don't you still find odd?...22,360 billions Ly! Hahaha. If you know relativity, you would not make such a mistake.


Error #2:His conclusion makes no sense. V1 and V2 are the same for both the earth observer and the rocket. Otherwise you wouldn't have Relative velocity. This is not a velocity addition case. It is straight stipulated "Relative Velocity" which means the velocity is the same for both observers! Therefore 27 m/sec differential and the required acceleration to go from V1 to V2 is the same in either frame. Remember the rule" Physics are the same in any frame of reference.


If you understand relativity, you would not make such statement. In SR, except for c, what remain invariant is the form of physics law. V1 and V2 are your assumed velocities of your rocket relative to earth (or velocity of earth relative to your rocket). If you understand relativity, you would know that additional velocity in V1 reference frame, after transformed to earth observer's reference frame yield smaller numerical value. Relativistic rocket equation must be derived using this concept. Since you don't understand relativity, I don't expect you to understand this description.


Problem #1: First note that my computation was correct. But then he wants to get esoteric and argue realities.


You had just made a good guess. However, since you missed the hidden consequence that earth observer would observe your distance as 22,360 billions Ly (1,500 times the size of universe, hahaha), you had provided us with ridiculous exercise; without a glimse of 'sorry'.


1 - Nobody knows how large the universe is. The generally accepted number is 13 - 15 B Ly. But that is only the observed matter universe. We certainly have not seen a sign posted that says "You have reached the end of the universe go back".


If you know the generally accepted universe size is 13-15 billions Ly, why did you make an exercise that requires a distance of 22,360 billions Ly???


2 - Many here (and perhaps Paul T, like to argue that the universe is "Infinite". Now this arguement. It is a strawman.


Now, I am a strawman. Why? Because I uncover your error?


3 - As I have said I picked 10 B Ly because it was a very large, even number, which would emphasize my point. There is and was no reason to select any particular number based on current unknowns.


If you understand relativity, you won't pick that number, as SR is only applicable for limited distance where assumption that spacetime flat still hold true. Not to mention, 22,360 billions Ly...couldn't believe you make such silly example, hahaha.


4 - The most recent study I have seen referenced has just increased the estimated size to 156 B Ly. So Paul is already off by a factor of 10 or more.


Start looking around, may be there is also study that shows the estimated universe is more than 22,360 billions Ly, hahahaha.


5 - Not that it has any bearing on this thread or on physics at large, I personally want to make it a matter of record (since I believe the mathematics will soon support my prori prediction) The size of the time-space universe will be on the order of 1E14 Ly.


As usual, day dreaming. What? So, that your exercise look sensible? Hahaha, you are funny....


6 - He miss quoted me. What I have said is that either both the rocket and earth observers see spatial contraction or neither do. I have yet to see him justify his claim that under simple "Relative Motion" where both are subject to the same relative velocity and the same gamma calculation, that one will see contraction and the other doesn't. For my personal belief I don't think either will see spatial contraction in accordance with Relativity. Contraction of physical objects, yes but not space.


Now, here you are...wasn't sure if the rocket and earth observer would see the distance as the same or not. Hahaha, are you still saying you know what you were talking about? Make up you your mind, MacM. Is there any contraction? How, could earth and rocket observer see the distance as the same. If that the case, why did you compute contraction for V2??? Your own statement is full of contradiction, MacM. If earth observer and rocket observer moving at velocity V1 see the same distance, the rocket observer at V2 will see the same distance too! Hahaha, you are funny, MacM. You are a joker.


Posted by MacM:[/b]That would clearly make SR false. To suggest that physics is different in different reference frames violates a basic premis. He has said that V1 and V2 are the same in both frames but he wants to claim there is a difference in acceleration required to go from one velocity to the other when both frames have the same relative velocities. Makes no sense what-so-ever.


You don't understand relativity, MacM. Stop day dreaming. As I have told you, SR only requires the form of physics law to be invariant, not all the number (length, time, etc). If everything the same, as you said, SR is just the same as Galilean relativity. Are you now supporting Galilien relativity, MacM?


Posted by MacM:I do indeed believe the velocity addition formula is wrong but that is not the issue here. We have a case of one observer assumed at rest. Another observer that has two different velocities at two different time. V1 and V2 are one observer and the velocities are not simultaneous. It is inappropriate and in error to use "Velocity Addition" in such a case. You do not have three simultaneous frames. You only have two frames and two seperate calculations. You cannot combine the non-relative velocities (velocities that occured at different times) using the velocity addition formula. As to who actually understands relativity best I think you are helping make that clear. Thanks.


Why don't you think this way. V1 is the velocity of your mother ship. You send another smaller ship to move ahead of your mother ship and it moves at velocity V2 relative to earth. You still unable to think that addition of velocities is required to compute the relative velocity between your smaller ship and your mother ship? Do you still think you understand relativity? Since, this smaller ship has to achieve velocity of 0.8c relative to the mother ship, acceleration of 54m/s² in one second....wouldn't do the job. This is just a help for you. Whether the mothership sends smaller ship to reach celocity V2 or the whole mothership reach V2, the computation would be the same.

Posted by MacM:Now why on earth would you want to switch frames to introduce time dilation. If you recall I even suggested you could do that but to do so did not alter the outcome of the exercise. So what is your point. I made it known that I understood that the accelertion rate would appear diifferent in different frames. But from the perspective of the pilot seeing contracton due to acceleration it is still one second. That is the only view that counts in the contraction example.


What? Are your trying to say, altering time for acceleration from merely 1 second as claimed by you to over fifty days (that is 4 millions seconds) can be considered as no alteration. Hahahaha, Mr Joker...you are funny.

May be you should send a letter to Baez, informing him that his relativistic rocket equations are wrong, as they don't support your claim; the one second claim...hahahhaha


I can't tell if you are really that confused or you are just trying to confuse others to attempt to phoo phoo me. But you have done a horrible job of it in either case. James R., has already concurred that my paradox would occur. That was the purpose of my thread and the end of this thread for me. Go pat yourself on the back undeservingly and go ahead and make stupid statements about me. I think it is clear which one of us has a better grip.

Which one of us has a better grip? You? With all the above joking, you still want to claim you understand relativity?

It's been allready a few hours since my last reply, I still cannot stop laughing

1100f,

All the people here that know SR, understood exactly what Pete meant when he said that the spacetime separation is invariant.
The fact that you understood it as space*time is the naked truth about your understanding of relativity.

Your mistake is equivalent to the mistake of writting that tan(x) = in(x)/co(x), after cancelling the s of the sine and the cosine.

Anyway, I think that not only you made my day, but for many other people here.


BTW. I read about someone that have found flaws in Newton's second law F = ma. The flaw is the following: If your mother is dead, you cannot write that F = ma for you, since ma is dead. Because of this flaw, he has written a new theory. Should I bother reading his theory?

Glad to be of service and that you have enjoyed yourself. I have too. Actually you are only partially corect. I did indeed short cut my point by striking a linear product of s * t. But the principle is the same. Increase one decrease the other. The fact is I have numerous papers and articles in favorites. I particularily like the following one since it has pretty moving graphs that help visualize the mathematics doesn't look straight to me.

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/wheel.html

That is because as I have admitted I am not fluent in the mathematics area partularily no longer do calculus. But that is a long way from not understanding the principles. Indeed I seem to have made my point in spite of what you think are my short comings.

Over the objection of others in particular Paul T., that have argued against my "Contraction Paradox". I seem to be correct. I realize that picking on easy targets has to be more fun but you really should also do a better job of keeping your purported experts in line as well.

Poor Paul T., made so many boners, so many absolutely stupid and contridictory statements (admits to minor ones but not the really important ones), and then wants to make issue over a grab bag number used to simply make a point because reversing relavistic contraction used at the start of the example it exceeded the known dimension of the universe.

To him that is a glaring example that I don't know anything. Horsesh_t. I have never said the universe IS this big and I was not considering any ramifications (actually unknowns) of that issue because I don't accept Relativity and was in the process of demonstrating the unacceptable paradoxes of its acceptance.

It is totally un-related to the point of the example and this posted topic. What was really funny was his effort to show I didn't know what I was talking about mathematically but when he finally figured the example correctly and found that I had the correct answer his response was "You were just lucky" Yea right Paul. It is vastly to complicated for me to understand or do the math but I got lucky. HeHeHeHe. LOL

You and I both are laughing 1100f.

You may not appreciate my writting style but I have found it most affective at suckering in twits like Paul T that see me as an easy target. They get over confident and start making stupid statements. I love it. Right Ryans and Persol?

Personally I don't really care what you think I know. I care about digging out the truth in all its ugliness. This paradox is one example. Many of you experts that keep attacking me can't even agree among yourselves what the truth is. I have learned who to trust the most and that seems to be James R and there are 2 - 3 others who's math are quite good. I may not accept JR's answer as fact but I generally know that his is the currently accepted view. The others like Paul T - be careful.

Paul T.,

I should skip the bulk of your selfserving and meaningless diatribe. But I am going to reply to and to point out those errors you choose to not recognize.

To be honest, I have no fundamental error to admit. I did make a few small mistakes, some misinterpretation, some numerical error...just being a human. Other than that, I have nothing BIG to admit. However, you are welcome to show me my errors.

Lets see:
1 - you applied the velocity addition formula(VAF) to a case where there is one observer "A" considered at rest on earth and only one other observer "B" in a rocket, stipulated to have two velocities relative to the earth at two different times. That is V1 and V2 are not simultaneous velocities relative to each other. Where these velocities were stipulated from earth's view and are to be used to compute spatial contraction you find it necessary to use the VAF to find the differential in velocity from "B's" view V1 and V2 as though they were two different rockets with simultaneous differences in velocity. That has absolutely nothing to do with the contraction calculation of this topic and is absolutely hilarious. Not to mention doing such a calculation in an accelerating frame. Thanks for the laugh.


2 - You claimed that in a case as described where there was nothing but simple relative velocity between the two observers, and hence a common gamma calculation, that one will see contraction but that the other didn't. Another good laugh.

It seems you have been corrected once more, the affects are entirely reversable (as in the invariant seperation posted by Pete).

3 - In spite of the fact that I made the point in my initial presentation that due to time dilation one second for one observer would be several thousand seconds for the other, but that it didn't alter the conclusion of the paradox, you choose to belabor the point adnauseam as though I had no clue that time dilation would affect such calculation.

It seems James R., agrees in gereral that it is a minor issue in the context of the problem and its posted purpose.

4 - You argued against the "Contraction Paradox", called it a variety of deragatory dillusions.

Once again you seem to have been in error. Such a paradox would occur (if you accept Relativity)

These are not minor errors regardless of your claims otherwise.

This is a proof that you don't know what you were talking about. You need others to support you. From what I see, James standing is just opposite of you. You won't get his support. So, now get ready to defend your own argument all by yourself.

Error in your judgement of that issue. He finds the paradox occurs and the time dilation ffect i relatively minor in terms of the overall conclusion. You hve no reason to be concerned about such affect just as I stated in my initial presentation.

But, it is still a proof that you don't understand relativity, since you used your own convention.

Actually it proves I am smarter than you and know enough to use my calculator more efficiently by using fewer keystrokes and still get the correct answer.

Unknown to you, picking up 10 billions Ly in V1 reference frame resulting earth observer would observe the distance as, don't you still find odd?...22,360 billions Ly! Hahaha. If you know relativity, you would not make such a mistake.

Once again you seem to want to create irrelevant issues to make invalid claims. Actually the ultimate size of the example universe is not an issue, has no bearing on the example process and is not any kind of mistake. Not to mention that there are plenty of people far more educated and qualified than you that will argue for an "infinite" universe. So stick your fluff where the sun doesn't shine.

If you understand relativity, you would not make such statement. In SR, except for c, what remain invariant is the form of physics law. V1 and V2 are your assumed velocities of your rocket relative to earth (or velocity of earth relative to your rocket). If you understand relativity, you would know that additional velocity in V1 reference frame, after transformed to earth observer's reference frame yield smaller numerical value. Relativistic rocket equation must be derived using this concept. Since you don't understand relativity, I don't expect you to understand this description.

More crap. Case in point:
1 - A rocket has a velocity of 0.6 c relative to Earth. What is gamma?
2 - A rocket has a velocity of 0.8 c relative to Mars. What is gamma?

You had just made a good guess. However, since you missed the hidden consequence that earth observer would observe your distance as 22,360 billions Ly (1,500 times the size of universe, hahaha), you had provided us with ridiculous exercise; without a glimse of 'sorry'.

HaHaHa indeed. Good guess?. Damn I'm out of here headed for Vegas. What a joke you are.

If you know the generally accepted universe size is 13-15 billions Ly, why did you make an exercise that requires a distance of 22,360 billions Ly???

Where do you see any requirement for the universe or the example to be real? My exercise was based on a mathematical proposition going from a given velocity at 10 B Ly. I had no reason to calculate backwards to see what the rest dimension would be that is not part of the problem and has no bearing jon the desired result. Ever hear of "Thought" problems.

Oh, I forgot one has to be able to think to perform thought problems. Sorry, next time I'll keep it simple just for you.

BTW just what source do you have that I don't have that says the observed universe is the limit of the universe? Ever hear of an infinite universe? That is larger than my example is it not?

Now, I am a strawman. Why? Because I uncover your error?

No because you raise irrelevant issues and change example conditions to argue points not related to the problem. You are rarely on topic (or correct).

If you understand relativity, you won't pick that number, as SR is only applicable for limited distance where assumption that spacetime flat still hold true. Not to mention, 22,360 billions Ly...couldn't believe you make such silly example, hahaha.

Perfect example. You want to now talk about we are going into unknown areas and SR might not apply. Like you actually know it applies out to 15 B Ly. What a joke, What a Joke, What a joke. I love it.

PS: Please show us how using 10 B LY to start instead of perhaps 10,000,000 Ly, in any way affects the ultimate conclusion of the purpose of this thread. Failing to do that don't you think you ought to just shut the hell up? You aren't contributing anything useful to the discussion. Thanks.

Start looking around, may be there is also study that shows the estimated universe is more than 22,360 billions Ly, hahahaha.

I'll only note that that study makes your view in error by a factor greater than 10/1 already. Ha Ha Ha indeed. twit.

As usual, day dreaming. What? So, that your exercise look sensible? Hahaha, you are funny....

No comment other than if you expect to remain employed let me suggest you learn to keep up with the times and to think beyond those highschool crib sheets you rely on.

Now, here you are...wasn't sure if the rocket and earth observer would see the distance as the same or not. Hahaha, are you still saying you know what you were talking about? Make up you your mind, MacM. Is there any contraction? How, could earth and rocket observer see the distance as the same. If that the case, why did you compute contraction for V2??? Your own statement is full of contradiction, MacM. If earth observer and rocket observer moving at velocity V1 see the same distance, the rocket observer at V2 will see the same distance too! Hahaha, you are funny, MacM. You are a joker.

No it is you that don't understand. I (in my view know the answer that I am content with). The problem is that there have been opposite views (some expressed in this thread), as to what Relativity means. Since I don't believe in Relativity in any case my post is to show the contrast of the opposing views being expressed as a function of the claims of Relativity. My personal view is that neither view argued here are correct but that is another story and since you can't even get Relativity correct, I think what I know beynd Relativiy is well past you capacity to absorb.

You don't understand relativity, MacM. Stop day dreaming. As I have told you, SR only requires the form of physics law to be invariant, not all the number (length, time, etc). If everything the same, as you said, SR is just the same as Galilean relativity. Are you now supporting Galilien relativity, MacM?

Well Galilean Relativy does permit FTL. I like that but that doesn't mean I accept Galilean Relativity. I don't accept MS.

Why don't you think this way. V1 is the velocity of your mother ship. You send another smaller ship to move ahead of your mother ship and it moves at velocity V2 relative to earth. You still unable to think that addition of velocities is required to compute the relative velocity between your smaller ship and your mother ship? Do you still think you understand relativity?

You pathetic fool of course you have created a case where you have true v and u terms. That is not the case in my example. It has no bearing on the topic "Contraction". Further even in such cases I don't believe in VAF because I reject Relativity.

Since, this smaller ship has to achieve velocity of 0.8c relative to the mother ship, acceleration of 54m/s2 in one second....wouldn't do the job. This is just a help for you. Whether the mothership sends smaller ship to reach celocity V2 or the whole mothership reach V2, the computation would be the same.

I do believe this was covered in my initial presentation stating that views of the acceleration rates would vary due to time dilation. But as was pointed out it has no bearing on the result being sought and is not part of the problem. The rocket goes from V1 to V2 a fixed delta V and doing it in a given time - by his clock - not some other view of his clock. His physics, the accelertion rate required to make the transition is the same in every frame.

That has been my statement and the fact that other view would hold a different rate and different velocity is not at issue and does not change the result of the topic proposal. So get off the "Everything must be absolute and realistic". Relativity isn't realistic in the first instance so why bother making something real in its terms when by its terms the point is proving in either case a paradox?. You just like minutiae detail or what. Or is it you cannot think outside the strick guidlines handed you and must follow your mothers recipe to boil water?

What? Are your trying to say, altering time for acceleration from merely 1 second as claimed by you to over fifty days (that is 4 millions seconds) can be considered as no alteration. Hahahaha, Mr Joker...you are funny.

You aren't funny. I stipulated one second in one view and several thousand seconds in the alternate view but further showed that such difference did not resolve the issue any differently. So it is a mute point. Perhaps you should learn to keep your eye on the purpose of a calculation and not how many ways you can argue the same result.

May be you should send a letter to Baez, informing him that his relativistic rocket equations are wrong, as they don't support your claim; the one second claim...hahahhaha

More Paul T make believe. Anyone reading the thread will see where I stated the time dilation difference and that it doesn't alter the end conclusion. Your repeated reference to this and to the rest view dimension of the universe in the example simply shows the weakness of your arguement. You have to repeat, repeat, repeat, the same old nonsense and ineffective side issues and try to create alternate issues to find more arguement.

Which one of us has a better grip? You? With all the above joking, you still want to claim you understand relativity?

You bet your ass and Ditto. I am finished with you and it will matter not what you post. You are a loser.

Many of you experts that keep attacking me can't even agree among yourselves what the truth is..

The truth is out there Mac, you just have to accept it. But since you cannot bend your mind around it, you prefer not to.

I have learned who to trust the most and that seems to be James R and there are 2 - 3 others who's math are quite good. I may not accept JR's answer as fact but I generally know that his is the currently accepted view. The others like Paul T - be careful

I think you underestimate "the others" like Paul T and 1100f. The reason why you think we do not agree is that some things can be explained in different ways. To you, they all seem uncorrelated.

MacM:

Over the objection of others in particular Paul T., that have argued against my "Contraction Paradox". I seem to be correct

Except for the "paradox" part, of course. There is no paradox.

crisp,

The truth is out there Mac, you just have to accept it. But since you cannot bend your mind around it, you prefer not to.

We agree the truth is out there but bending ones mind is not necessirly the way to find it. :D Not that the universe cares if it bends one mind or not. But truth is truth however it unfolds.

I think you underestimate "the others" like Paul T and 1100f. The reason why you think we do not agree is that some things can be explained in different ways. To you, they all seem uncorrelated.

Not totally accurate. I actually see Paul T., as knowledgable but certainly not pragmatic, not a good communicator. 1100f is also good but a better communicator. I have seen him at least respond properly to disagreement. Paul T it seems is incapable of such flexability.

James R,

MacM:

Except for the "paradox" part, of course. There is no paradox.

I believe we understand your response to mean what I stated. That at high relavistic speeds, moving away from objects, acceleration in accordance with Relativity causes those objects to get closer; even perhaps at FTL speeds as was shown by the contraction/acceleration calculations.

Not willing to call that a paradox, to me at least, is courious but certainly within your perogative as a Relativists. :D

Or as someone who speaks english. What EXACTLY about what you just said is a paradox?

Persol,

Or as someone who speaks english. What EXACTLY about what you just said is a paradox?

Funny post indeed.

STATEMENT:

"THE FASTER I MOVE AWAY THE CLOSER I GET".

Now from Webster:

"Paradox":

1 - a statement contrary to common belief.

2 - a statement that seems contridictory, unbelivable, or absurd but that may be true in fact

Now I would think one that speaks english would know the meaning of english words.

But thanks for the laugh.

MacM,


I believe we understand your response to mean what I stated. That at high relavistic speeds, moving away from objects, acceleration in accordance with Relativity causes those objects to get closer; even perhaps at FTL speeds as was shown by the contraction/acceleration calculations.

Not willing to call that a paradox, to me at least, is courious but certainly within your perogative as a Relativists. :D

Earlier you said:

If I therefore accelerate 54 m/sec for one sec I will have a velocity increase stipulated between V1 and V2.

Assuming my distance from earth was 10 B Ly at V1 (that includes contraction) I would see earth as (3.162277658 B Ly + 1 L sec) away when I reach V2. That is a spatial decrease of 6.837722342 B Ly decrease in 1 sec.

Hope you now understand that your one second acceleration of 54m/s² in V1 (=0.9999999c) reference frame could not make your rocket to reach velocity V2(=0.99999999c). However, either allowing more time or applying higher acceleration would do the job. Say, you fix the time to one second and apply higher acceleration.

Distance of 10 billions Ly is arbitrary. It can be any number, 1 meter, 1 millions kilometers, etc. There is no reason for choosing any particular number. The only thing certain is, the farther away your reference point (say, earth), the higher your <font face=symbol>D</font>L. You seem to argue that the velocity associated to contraction is <font face=symbol>D</font>L/acceleration time. Here, you have the problem, for a certain acceleration time, you can pick any <font face=symbol>D</font>L depending on the disntance of "at rest" reference frame you choose and therefore you could have any velocity, simultaneosly. What kind of velocity is that? Not anything we know in physics, of course.

Paul T,

Hope you now understand that your one second acceleration of 54m/s² in V1 (=0.9999999c) reference frame could not make your rocket to reach velocity V2(=0.99999999c). However, either allowing more time or applying higher acceleration would do the job. Say, you fix the time to one second and apply higher acceleration.

I refuse to re-argue this issue but simply remind you that I had already stated in my opening of this topic that such time dilation would alter those figures but also that to do so would not alter the conclusion.

Put succintly as I can. I don't give a damn about the precise mathematics of the issue and you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue.

Distance of 10 billions Ly is arbitrary. It can be any number, 1 meter, 1 millions kilometers, etc. There is no reason for choosing any particular number. The only thing certain is, the farther away your reference point (say, earth), the higher your <font face=symbol>D</font>L. You seem to argue that the velocity associated to contraction is <font face=symbol>D</font>L/acceleration time. Here, you have the problem, for a certain acceleration time, you can pick any <font face=symbol>D</font>L depending on the disntance of "at rest" reference frame you choose and therefore you could have any velocity, simultaneosly. What kind of velocity is that? Not anything we know in physics, of course.

Due to a general language problem here, I don't fully understand what you are trying to say. However, I can say this.

I chose an arbitrarily large initial distance and an arbitrarily large velocity for the shear purpose of causeing the largest possible affect. Surely you can see that contracting the enite univers in seconds hours or your 54 days for that matter causes an object to appear to come closer the faster you move away from it "THE PARADOX", plus such motion becomes FTL.

You would not produce that affect if the delta L were only 10 meters or such as you have suggested. Do you get it yet?

MacM,


I refuse to re-argue tis isue but simply remind you that I had already stated in my opening of this topic that such time dilation would alter those figures but alo that to do so would not alter the conclusion.

Put succintly as I can. I don't give a damn about the precise mathematics of the issue and you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue.


Hahaha, you always funny. Are you telling me that you actually knew that acceleration of 54m/s² in one second could not increase your rocket velocity from V1 to V2, since you said:"you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue"? If you really did know that, why did you say in your exercise that it could?

Not I wanted to repeat this again and again, but you keep making funny statement like "you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue". You already known everything I said? Wow, what's a wonder MacM. Do you know everything?


Due to a general language problem here, I don't fully understand what you are trying to say. However, I can say this.

I chose an arbitrarily large initial distance and an arbitrarily large velocity for the shear purpose of causeing the largest possible affect. Surely you can see that contracting the enite univers in seconds hours or your 54 days for that matter causes an object to appear to come closer the faster you move away from it "THE PARADOX", plus such motion becomes FTL.

You would not produce that affect if the delta L were only 10 meters or such as you have suggested. Do you get it yet?

Let me tell you what have you introduced under your "Lorentz Contraction Paradox". You defined a new kind of "VELOCITY", that is "DIFFERETIAL LORENTZ CONTRACTION/ACCELERATION TIME". This velocity, how should we call it?, say...MacM's Velocity, has the following properties:

1). It could be any value depending on the distance of the "at rest" reference point.
2). It doesn't follow Newton's First Law
3). Many more....

Let me show you with an example. A rocket near earth explodes. The cockpit fly away from earth at velocity 0.1c relative to earth. Say, the explosion happen in 1 second, meaning that the cockpit velocity increase from about zero to V=0.1c in 1 second. I'll compute the MacM's Velocity for the cockpit, relative to the sun, 150 millions km away.

Differential Lorentz Contraction = 150 millions km (1 - 0.994987) = 751,884 km

MacM's Velocity = 751,884 km/s (this is FTL, may be).

Of course the velocity is only last for 1 second, that's why I said it doesn't follow Newton's First Law. But, I have no idea, relative to what this velocity really is. Do you thing it is relative to the sun?

Now you can also pick other reference point, say a star 5 ly away or 100,000 ly away...basically any thing you want. So, you would obtain different MacM's Velocity for different reference point.

This velocity of yours has nothing in common with velocity that we know. Think about it, MacM. Oh, I remember...you don't have to think...you know it!

Paul T,

MacM,
Hahaha, you always funny. Are you telling me that you actually knew that acceleration of 54m/s² in one second could not increase your rocket velocity from V1 to V2, since you said:"you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue"? If you really did know that, why did you say in your exercise that it could?

Since you have moved this discussion from the thread I started, where I was found correct. To this thread you started simply because you seem to disagree with relativty on the issue and choose to try and attack me by repeating the same old irrelavant issues - and lies. I'll repeat it this time - and lies. Because you know damn well I knew since I pointed you several times to the fact that I had already set forth that issue at the outset. So you choose to be a contemptable damn liar that is your choice but others are damn well going to know you are a deliberate liar and slanderer. See the following :

****************** From Lorentz Contracton Paradox ************
Posted by MacM: 5/28 @ 8:08 AM

If at v = c space becomes "zero" then objects approaching v = c should appear to be many multiples of c in the wrong direction. That is an object going from 99.99999999% c to 99.999999999% c in one hour (for general example without computing the gamma function) would appear to have moved 10 B Ly in a matter of an hour.
****************************************

Posted by MacM: 6/1 @ 8:28PM

Now I already know you will scream "Time Dilation". Go ahead, at V2 time dilation is such that 1 sec is actually 7,071 seconds earth time. So while I shouldn't I'll give you time dilation and still claim that if spatial contraction in Relativity is as you claim then in one second (or 7,071 seconds) moving AWAY from earth I would see earth move CLOSER by 967,009 Lyr!!!

Note this is Light YEARS per Second.
*********************************************

Posted by James R: 6/1 @ 8:55PM
MacM:

That looks approximately correct to me.

Do you have any particular scientific problem with that conclusion, or only a gut feeling that you just don't like it?
************************************************** ******

Since you have choosen to start this thread so that you can make false charges away from the actual content of what I had posted, I have brought those posts here so others will know you are a deliberate liar. It is nothing to have a misunderstanding or make a mistake or fail to see something but having it shown to you and for you to continue to repeat the same false charge can be called nothing but your are a deliberate liar.

Now technically my string should have ended there. The paradox had been proven (including the issues of time dilation and the affect on acceleratation), which I brought up first.

Not I wanted to repeat this again and again, but you keep making funny statement like "you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue". You already known everything I said? Wow, what's a wonder MacM. Do you know everything?

No I certainly do not but I do know when I see jealousy. You are fucking green because you can't think, beyond those highschool crib sheets I mentioned before, and right or wrong I at least have put together a new concept. It should be crystal clear to anybody reading this post that you know the truth in this case and simply choose to lie and make false condensending statements.

The balance of your post is your own fabricated distorted view of the situation posted and your own effort to enhance your own standing (in your own eyes) by resolving the false example which you created for yourself.

It is my perogative and choice to not play your simple minded selfserving games.

I have proven my case about the paradox which you still choose to deny (which doesn't set well with your claim to understand relativity).

I have proven that I knew about time dilation and its affects on the computation of acceleration and had posted it as part of my simplified example calculation before you raised it as an issue.

I have proved that you choose to continue to lie about what I knew when and to try (in vain) to ridicule me when you are now starting to make yourself look exceptionly foolish.

I have claimed that using the velocity addition formula in the example which I posted was an error on your part and is improper. You disagree. Yet James R, has supported my claim by pointing out that you cannot compute such affects in a simple direct way in an accelerating frame.

I really think you should quit while you are only this far behind. The longer you bump your gums the deeper the hole you seem to be digging for yourself.

MacM,


Since you have choosen to start this thread so that you can make false charges away from the actual content of what I had posted, I have brought those posts here so others will know you are a deliberate liar. It is nothing to have a misunderstanding or make a mistake or fail to see something but having it shown to you and for you to continue to repeat the same false charge can be called nothing but your are a deliberate liar.


You said just a few messages above under this thread:

Originally Posted by MacM
I believe we understand your response to mean what I stated. That at high relavistic speeds, moving away from objects, acceleration in accordance with Relativity causes those objects to get closer; even perhaps at FTL speeds as was shown by the contraction/acceleration calculations.

Not willing to call that a paradox, to me at least, is courious but certainly within your perogative as a Relativists.

I was just replying your above message. Why did you think that's wrong?


No I certainly do not but I do know when I see jealousy. You are fucking green because you can't think, beyond those highschool crib sheets I mentioned before, and right or wrong I at least have put together a new concept. It should be crystal clear to anybody reading this post that you know the truth in this case and simply choose to lie and make false condensending statements.


Jealous of what? Because you can think while I can't? Hahaha


The balance of your post is your own fabricated distorted view of the situation posted and your own effort to enhance your own standing (in your own eyes) by resolving the false example which you created for yourself.

It is my perogative and choice to not play your simple minded selfserving games.


Oops, so you set the rule about the topic and how it should be responded? I analyzed your idea by telling you that the velocity that you introduced (due to Lorentz's contraction) is not normal velocity. Can you show me that I am wrong in this case, that your so-called "MacM's Velocity" is just the same as any velocity that we know?


I have proven my case about the paradox which you still choose to deny (which doesn't set well with your claim to understand relativity).


This is nothing about relativity understanding. I just showed you what your velocity really mean. From there we can understand what your paradox really about. But, unfortunately...THE CASE HAS ALREADY CLOSED! MacM, single handedly proved that there is paradox. Hahahaha. Why are you so funny, MacM?


I have proven that I knew about time dilation and its affects on the computation of acceleration and had posted it as part of my simplified example calculation before you raised it as an issue.


I did not question about your understanding on time dilation here, did I? Read carefully my previous post, it's all about velocity definition.


I have proved that you choose to continue to lie about what I knew when and to try (in vain) to ridicule me when you are now starting to make yourself look exceptionly foolish.


Where did you find I lie about what you knew? You said: "you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue". I amazed by that and tried to find out if that's really the case. If what you said is true, I am really no match to you as you have already known everything I said.


I have claimed that using the velocity addition formula in the example which I posted was an error on your part and is improper. You disagree. Yet James R, has supported my claim by pointing out that you cannot compute such affects in a simple direct way in an accelerating frame.


Not I am dying for support as you are. But, to the best of my knowledge, the following is James R's response on my comment to your exercise.


“ Say, there is a rocket moving at velocity 0.6c relative to earth. Rocket observer would see earth moving at -0.6c. Then, the rocket accelerates to 0.8c, relative to earth. Of course, again, rocket observer would see earth moving at velocity -0.8c. How much does the rocket velocity increase from 0.6c to 0.8c in reference frame moving at velocity 0.6c? It is not 0.8c - 0.6c = 0.2c, but u=(0.8c-0.6c)/(1-0.48)=0.3846153..c.

MacM claimed, in principle, rocket velocity of 0.8c is achievable (from 0.6c) by applying acceleration, say 300,000m/s2 in 200 seconds in rocket observer's reference frame. I told him, that's not possible, because that amount of acceleration and elapse time would increase the rocket velocity by 0.2c only (actualy less than 0.2c, if we take into account relativistic effect in the rocket reference frame as well), while the rquired velocity increment is 0.3846153..c. Hence, it needs more than 200 seconds. ”



All this is correct. We have reached the same conclusion from two different directions.



I really think you should quit while you are only this far behind. The longer you bump your gums the deeper the hole you seem to be digging for yourself.

Hey, I just tried to response to your "Paradox".

Paul T,

When I first saw this post I had decided to not respond at all but I thought I would give you one last chance to correct yourself and salvage you declining reputation.

In your above post you have said this "I did not question about your understanding on time dilation here, did I? Read carefully my previous post, it's all about velocity definition."

But in the previous post you actually said this "Hahaha, you always funny. Are you telling me that you actually knew that acceleration of 54m/s2 in one second could not increase your rocket velocity from V1 to V2, since you said:"you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue"? "

So now you choose to argue about what your prior, prior post actually meant. It appears clear to me you were discussing the time dilation affect on acceleration in the process of going from V1 to V2. An issue which I have already shown "I" had raised due to the impact of time dilation.

You subsequently started attacking the topic of the contraction paradox based on your false charge that I had not considered time dilation and its affects on the acceleration issue. Now that I have shown clearly that I had done so prior to your starting your attacks you want to claim you weren't discussing acceleration but the velocities. HaHaHaHa indeed.

Anybody that has read your posts know without question you have repeatedly raised the issue of acceleration. This post is just one more example of your lying tatics to try and continue your selfserving claims of showing me wrong.

As was said in the movies "Frankly, I don't give a damn dear". I gained the answer I was seeking in my thread and I chose not to participate in the distortions you want to impose in your thread.

So have fun playing with yourself. No pun intended.

MacM,


But in the previous post you actually said this "Hahaha, you always funny. Are you telling me that you actually knew that acceleration of 54m/s2 in one second could not increase your rocket velocity from V1 to V2, since you said:"you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue"? "


Does that question of mine questioning your understanding about time dilation? Not at all. It clarified your statement "you haven't introduced anything that I didn't already know was an issue"? and in doing so, I picked one example indicating that your claimed is not supported by fact.

Questioning about your understanding on relativity is a past issue. As far as I am concern, it's a solved issue. If it appear in my earlier post, it was just raised for example only.


You subsequently started attacking the topic of the contraction paradox based on your false charge that I had not considered time dilation and its affects on the acceleration issue. Now that I have shown clearly that I had done so prior to your starting your attacks you want to claim you weren't discussing acceleration but the velocities. HaHaHaHa indeed.


This is very funny, MacM. So, you set the direction of response. I was doing my own research to address about "Lotentz's Contraction Paradox". You did not provided my funding so, stop imposing your own rule about what should or what shouldn't I commented. If I want to talk about acceleration, it's my own busisness. What's your problem with that MacM?


Anybody that has read your posts know without question you have repeatedly raised the issue of acceleration. This post is just one more example of your lying tatics to try and continue your selfserving claims of showing me wrong.


I and anybody else can raise any issue. Acceleration issue is not a taboo issue, why should you bann it.

I have indeed making some progress on my research. I will publish my result here. I suggest you to not feel that such publication is a attempt to defame you. It is just an academic exploration, just like somebody raise issue about twin paradox where the originator of the paradox need not feel offended and neither you.

Paul T,

Since your posts are nothing more than re-hash of re-hash of re-hash being repeated over and over, in total disregard of any evidence I post, I am not going to waste a lot of time here.

1 - You continue to claim that I did not know about time dilation and its impact on acceleration and therefore actually know nothing about relativity. I have posted the actual copies of my prior posts which show that claim to be blatantly false.

2 - You continue to claim you know everything and made no major errors, when in fact I have pointed out major flaws in your understanding of relativity.

a - Your misuse of the Velocity Addition Formula (VAF). Where I had presented a case of an earth observer and one rocket under acceleration from V1 to V2 and you tried to use VAF to adjust velocities for acceleration rates.

You supplied your own altered example of an earth observer and two rockets with V1 and V2 to demonstrate how that was the same thing. IT IS NOT.

As has been pointed out to you more than once you cannot compute such relavistic functions in an accelerating frame. My example is an accelerating frame. Yours was not. You are wrong. It is time you admit it.

b - Your rejection of the contraction paradox which I demonstrated. If you really understand relativity then you have no option but to acknowledge the paradox. Even if you temper your defeat by declaring the observation as real but that it isn't a paradox which is what James ultimately did.

This is very funny, MacM. So, you set the direction of response. I was doing my own research to address about "Lotentz's Contraction Paradox". You did not provided my funding so, stop imposing your own rule about what should or what shouldn't I commented. If I want to talk about acceleration, it's my own busisness. What's your problem with that MacM?

Not only did I not provide your funding but based on your demonstrated lack of understanding I would never fund you.

I have no problem if you want to discuss acceleration but do it in your own topic, without trying to use it as a vehicle to drag me in or down by attacking me in your presentation.

When in my topic stay on topic.

A common resolution to this topic's questions may be found at:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37305&page=3