Just a note to readers. I had posted this with three vote choices. Apparently James R has amended my vote choices to include "Don't Care".

Well, I don't really care either that he has done that but I find it in poor taste for him to have done so without comment or permission. That is not unlike altering the text of my post.

There is currently a thread running which advocates a principle of Relativity for which the stated conclusion is deliberately misleading.

Thread

The issue has to do with the very requirement by Relativity for something called reciprocity in cases of constant relative velocity and/or equal acceleration. That means whatever happens to A happens to B.

In the diagrams given in this case the calculations are made for only one direction of a light signal, frankly the light signal is a complexiety which isn't required to properly analyze the problem.

After running a one hour test under such conditions at 0.9c relative velocity the following would be true statements:

Clock A reads 3,600 seconds but percieves Clock B as reading 1,569.2 seconds.

Clock B reads 3,600 seconds but percieves Clock A as reading 1,569.2 seconds.

Upon returning the clocks to a common rest frame they will both still read 3,600 seconds. There is no physical shift of time. The illusion is created by only calculating one half of the actual physical situation.

This mathematical trick is obvious if you consider this simplified demonstration.

If I tell you that X = Y². You can plot that relationship and you would see a curve. You would claim that this is reality and that X and Y have this non-linear relationship.

However, if you are forced to apply reciprocity you would have to also claim that Y = X².

Substituting:

X = (X²)² = X⁴
Y = (Y²)² = Y⁴

X⁴ = Y⁴

X = Y

So a non-linear illusion of reality is created by looking at only half of the problem. The reality is it is linear.

Likewise, in Relativity one sees T2 = T1(1 - v²/c²)^.5 as a non linear time function between clocks and it is claimed that flying around the universe at relavistic speeds will cause you to return younger than your twin you left at home.

Well, the truth is that no such thing happens as a consequence of relative velocity. Upon return your watches (and ages) may only differ a small amount due to General Relativity involving acceleration and gravity but no changes due to long term relative velocity.

This is made abundantly clear if one actually computes the total reality of the situation and not calculate only one half of the reality.

There is currently a thread running which advocates a principle of Relativity for which the stated conclusion is deliberately misleading.

41419

I encourage all interested readers to read the thread that MacM is referring to.

It does not advocate a principle of relativity. It derives results mathematically and rigorously from one particular set of principles of relativity.

It is left to the judgment of readers to agree or disagree with the validity of the principles. Readers are also urged to examine the arguments to satisfy themselves that the stated conclusions do actually follow from the given postulates.

I also note that real-world experiments which test the real world against the mathematically derived results provide strong evidence in favour of the truth of the postulates. Relativity appears to provide an excellent description of our physical world.

The issue has to do with the very requirement by Relativity for something called reciprocity in cases of constant relative velocity and/or equal acceleration. That means whatever happens to A happens to B.

There is no such principle in relativity. This must be the "misleading science" MacM is trying to get at here.

Nothing in relativity says "what happens to A happens to B". In fact, in the example given in the linked thread, A emits light, while B does not. B receives a light signal; A does not.

In the diagrams given in this case the calculations are made for only one direction of a light signal, frankly the light signal is a complexiety which isn't required to properly analyze the problem.

Note that MacM has given no alternative way to "analyse the problem".

If I tell you that X = Y^2. You can plot that relationship and you would see a curve. You would claim that this is reality and that X and Y have this non-linear relationship.

And indeed they do, if the equation is correct and X and Y are variables.

However, if you are forced to apply reciprocity you would have to also claim that Y = X^2.

MacM here is introducing a concept of "reciprocity" which has nothing to do with relativity, making his analogy useless from this point onwards.

Substituting:

X = (X^2)^2 = X^4
Y = (Y^2)^2 = Y^4

X^4 = Y^4

X = Y

MacM here explicitly avoids the implication of his two equations, which show that X=Y=0 or X=Y=1 are the only solutions to his "reciprocal" pair.

That means that the relation X=Y^2 is not a relation between two variables, but between two constants.

So a non-linear illusion of reality is created by looking at only half of the problem. The reality is it is linear.

The reality in MacM's example is that X and Y are not related, linearly or in any other way. They are simply constants, equal to either 1 or 0.

Likewise, in Relativity one sees T2 = T1(1 - v2/c2)^.5 as a non linear time function between clocks and it is claimed that flying around the universe at relavistic speeds will cause you to return younger than your twin you left at home.

Actually, for constant v, the given function is linear, not non-linear as MacM says. The variables are T2 and T1.

The twin paradox is a well-known example which cannot be solved using the given equation alone, since the spaceship must accelerate to return home.

Well, the truth is that no such thing happens as a consequence of relative velocity. Upon return your watches (and ages) may only differ a small amount due to General Relativity involving acceleration and gravity but no changes due to long term relative velocity.

In fact, large differences due to GR effects are possible. These are countered by SR effects. In combination, they result in a net time difference.

This is made abundantly clear if one actually computes the total reality of the situation and not calculate only one half of the reality.

MacM doesn't know how to calculate any part of the reality.

The issue has to do with the very requirement by Relativity for something called reciprocity in cases of constant relative velocity and/or equal acceleration. That means whatever happens to A happens to B.

In the diagrams given in this case the calculations are made for only one direction of a light signal, frankly the light signal is a complexiety which isn't required to properly analyze the problem.

After running a one hour test under such conditions at 0.9c relative velocity the following would be true statements:

Clock A reads 3,600 seconds but percieves Clock B as reading 1,569.2 seconds.

Clock B reads 3,600 seconds but percieves Clock A as reading 1,569.2 seconds.

Upon returning the clocks to a common rest frame they will both still read 3,600 seconds. There is no physical shift of time. The illusion is created by only calculating one half of the actual physical situation.


This is not illusion but stupidity! Only in MacM's relativity such a stupid test exist. Based on standard SR, we don't compare clock reading on A and B (a non-symmetrical system) that way. MacM compared only time component but ignored length component. It is therefore invalid test as time and length (or space) are interconnected.

MacM is proposing a new kind of relativity called "MacM's relativity" so if it looks silly, that's the way it is.


This mathematical trick is obvious if you consider this simplified demonstration.

If I tell you that X = Y². You can plot that relationship and you would see a curve. You would claim that this is reality and that X and Y have this non-linear relationship.

However, if you are forced to apply reciprocity you would have to also claim that Y = X².

Substituting:

X = (X²)² = X⁴
Y = (Y²)² = Y⁴

X⁴ = Y⁴

X = Y



A school kid would have done a better math than this. The two equations, X = Y² and Y = X², if plotted on cartesian coordinate displaying two parabolas respectively open to the right and up. They have two intersection points, as shown by James R on the other thread. X and Y equal only on that two intersection points, nothing else. It tells nothing more than that except for someone suffering from serious delusion.


So a non-linear illusion of reality is created by looking at only half of the problem. The reality is it is linear.


Sound poetic, but this is just bullshit as pointed above.


Likewise, in Relativity one sees T2 = T1(1 - v²/c²)^.5 as a non linear time function between clocks and it is claimed that flying around the universe at relavistic speeds will cause you to return younger than your twin you left at home.


It is again very stupid. Relationship between T1 and T2 in that equation are linear since (1 - v²/c²) with v constant is yes...constant. So, it is T2=T1*C, linear relationship...only a fool would think it is non-linear!


Well, the truth is that no such thing happens as a consequence of relative velocity. Upon return your watches (and ages) may only differ a small amount due to General Relativity involving acceleration and gravity but no changes due to long term relative velocity.


Wild speculation. The above statement will fall apart when scrutinized closely.


This is made abundantly clear if one actually computes the total reality of the situation and not calculate only one half of the reality.

I encourage all interested readers to read the thread that MacM is referring to.

Yes please do and note that he calculates only one view not the recipocal view using the same relavistic principles. Relativity states wither A or B may be considered at rest.

If you calculate the view of the observer at rest he "Sees" differences in the time flow of the moving clock. But he doesn't then show you that under the same rules of Relativity you should also consider the other clock at rest and calculate his view as though he were at rest and the other clock is in motion.

That is what relativity is. A<---- 0.9c------>B is 0.9c to either clock regardless of which clock is placed into any particular frame, including a rest frame whire v = 0.

It does not advocate a principle of relativity. It derives results mathematically and rigorously from one particular set of principles of relativity.

Please note the term "one".

It is left to the judgment of readers to agree or disagree with the validity of the principles. Readers are also urged to examine the arguments to satisfy themselves that the stated conclusions do actually follow from the given postulates.

It is noted that indeed his mathematics are correct, howver, that he is still only showing the "Perception" based on one view not both which Relativity applies equally to both views.

Do it correctly and these functions vanish.

I also note that real-world experiments which test the real world against the mathematically derived results provide strong evidence in favour of the truth of the postulates. Relativity appears to provide an excellent description of our physical world.

Indeed I concur that mathematically Relativity has value but that doesn't alter the conclusion that many of its attributes are "Perception" and not physical reality.

For example the H&K Atomic Clock test which claimed to have recorded time dilation between clocks being flown around the earth vs a clock stationary on earth, proving Relativity; actually violates Relativity.

The clock on earth did not produce the slowing reading expected (according to Relativity) by the pilot flying the plane. In terms of only relative velocity each clock should have shown an equal amount of slowing and there should be no measureable time differance.

You need to ask yourselves "How is it that we are claiming the observation by a remote party (indeed trillions of remote parties, at trillions of different relative velocities) can alter your watch?" It can't and it doesn't. Not even according to relativity. What Relativity actually shows is "Perception" of your watches "Reality".

There is no such principle in relativity. This must be the "misleading science" MacM is trying to get at here.

Nice try James R. Now explain to us how you can say that relative velocity between two clocks is not the same velocity? If I say B is receeding from A with a relative velocity of 0.9c, are you going to tell us that B does not see A as receeding at 0.9c?

I think not. That SIR is reciprocity and while it is not made clear (and for good reason) it is a fact of Relativity and must be considered.

Nothing in relativity says "what happens to A happens to B". In fact, in the example given in the linked thread, A emits light, while B does not. B receives a light signal; A does not.[/qluote]

Careful when he starts to shoot light signals in one direction. Make him reverse the proceedure and tell you the results. Relatiove velocity is "Relative" meaning mutual, equal and recipocal in both directions, otherwise it is not relative.

[quote]Note that MacM has given no alternative way to "analyse the problem".

Sure I have. But go ahead and use light signals, just apply them bi-directionally and compute both halves of the problem, then post our results.

And indeed they do, if the equation is correct and X and Y are variables.

MacM here is introducing a concept of "reciprocity" which has nothing to do with relativity, making his analogy useless from this point onwards.

I hope you folks are paying attention. James has just tried to blow off one half of Relativity to keep Relativity viable. Of course reciprocity exists, otherwise you do not have "Relative" velocity.

He would be a great snake oil salesman.

MacM here explicitly avoids the implication of his two equations, which show that X=Y=0 or X=Y=1 are the only solutions to his "reciprocal" pair.

That means that the relation X=Y^2 is not a relation between two variables, but between two constants.

The reality in MacM's example is that X and Y are not related, linearly or in any other way. They are simply constants, equal to either 1 or 0.

He would have you believe his objection actually means something. It doesn't. It was as stated a simplified illustration of how mathematically you can get a curve by looking at only one half of the information about a situation where no curve exists in reality.

That is what is being done in Relativity. Make them compute both A and B clocks view and then compare results. They clocks will actually remainin agreement as to the passage of time. There will be no net time dilation.

Note: If X = 1 and Y = 1 then X = Y. If X = 0 and Y = 0 then X = Y.

Don't let him side track your attention from that fact.

Actually, for constant v, the given function is linear, not non-linear as MacM says. The variables are T2 and T1.

Red herring. Reciprocity doesn't care if it is linear, constant or variable. Reciprocity only cares that it is equally appled to both views. therefore it isn't only constant relative velocity that has reciprocity. two clocks can be accelerated equally in opposite directions and there still will not be any time differential displayed in the clocks upon returning them to a common rest frame for comparison.

The only shift in time that may occur would involve asymmetrical acceleration and/or gravity affects.

The twin paradox is a well-known example which cannot be solved using the given equation alone, since the spaceship must accelerate to return home.

Don't let him confuse you we are not discussing GR, acceleration or gravity affects but reciprocity affects where acceleration, gravity are kept equal.

Relative velocity is inherently equal.

In fact, large differences due to GR effects are possible. These are countered by SR effects. In combination, they result in a net time difference.

SR has no net affect due to reciprocity.

MacM doesn't know how to calculate any part of the reality.

HeHeHe. When are you going to learn that personal attacks, especially one that are so clearly false, gain you no credability. You would do better to post here an example of how A<---delta v ------>B is not equal to both A and B and how when you then insert that velocity into the relavistic formula you get anything but equal results or affects and how such equal affects do not cancle leaving no net affect.

That is your task. Not casting innuendo and slander at me for posting absolute truths.

Mac,
You would do better to post here an example of how A<---delta v ------>B is not equal to both A and B and how when you then insert that velocity into the relavistic formula you get anything but equal results or affects and how such equal affects do not cancle leaving no net affect.
If you'd bother to read my posts, perhaps you'd understand by now.
Remember that post you've been avoiding like the plague?
Why not just admit you don't understand it, and leave it at that?

This is not illusion but stupidity! Only in MacM's relativity such a stupid test exist. Based on standard SR, we don't compare clock reading on A and B (a non-symmetrical system) that way. MacM compared only time component but ignored length component. It is therefore invalid test as time and length (or space) are interconnected.

READERS: Please note the quality of this post. Does he actually adres the issue? No. Does he point out any actual flaw? No. Does he run off at the mouth and cast innuendo and slander? Yes. that should tell you a lot about his worth.

MacM is proposing a new kind of relativity called "MacM's relativity" so if it looks silly, that's the way it is.

Check it out. He either doewn't understand relativity or wishes to seep this under the rug by simply denying that if A is moving 30 Mph relative to B that B must also be moving 30 Mph relative to A. That isn't my theory it is simple fact and is an integral part of Relativity.

Which is it you don't understand Relativity or you can't overcome this issue and choose to try and mask the jroblem with BS?

A school kid would have done a better math than this. The two equations, X = Y² and Y = X², if plotted on cartesian coordinate displaying two parabolas respectively open to the right and up. They have two intersection points, as shown by James R on the other thread. X and Y equal only on that two intersection points, nothing else. It tells nothing more than that except for someone suffering from serious delusion.

Someone is suffering from dillusion but it isn't I unfortunately for you. Your objection here is meaningless. Address the issue of inherent reciprocity in Relativity.

Sound poetic, but this is just bullshit as pointed above.

Yes I have pointed out your bullshit above.

It is again very stupid. Relationship between T1 and T2 in that equation are linear since (1 - v²/c²) with v constant is yes...constant. So, it is T2=T1*C, linear relationship...only a fool would think it is non-linear!

Only a fool would not understand the relationship I am speaking of is the non-linear time dilation affect of the formula for various velocities. That damn sure is not linear. Twit.

Wild speculation. The above statement will fall apart when scrutinized closely.

We are waiting. The clock is ticking (pun intended).

if A is moving 30 Mph relative to B that B must also be moving 30 Mph relative to A.

And yet there is no frame in which both A and B are moving at 30Mph...
If you choose a frame where one is moving at 30Mph, then the other is stationary (or moving at 60Mph).

If you want to put the same number into an equation for both A's velocity and B's velocity, then that number must be 15 (and must be negative for one of them)... but so what?

Mac's concept of "reciprocity" is ill-defined, and doesn't seem to give any useful results (unlike the well-defined concept of symmetry).

Mac,

If you'd bother to read my posts, perhaps you'd understand by now.
Remember that post you've been avoiding like the plague?
Why not just admit you don't understand it, and leave it at that?

Well, I haven't avoided your ost. I did read it but I noted two things.

1 - First it is not the test I am refering to and gets aways fromthe issue at hand which is reciprocity of clocks in constant relative motion.

2 - that you are trying to confuse simultaneity with reciprocity. Please note that the time span onyour time sacles are equal.

3 - What is the respective time differential between these events for each observer?

Want to try again?

MacM:

Yes please do and note that he calculates only one view not the recipocal view using the same relavistic principles. Relativity states wither A or B may be considered at rest.

Wrong. Both observers' views are taken into account in the given derivation, as they msut be to come to any conclusion. Relativity is, after all, all about the comparison of different reference frames.

If you calculate the view of the observer at rest he "Sees" differences in the time flow of the moving clock. But he doesn't then show you that under the same rules of Relativity you should also consider the other clock at rest and calculate his view as though he were at rest and the other clock is in motion.

Two points here.

1. The given example deals not with what observers "see", but with the actual times and locations of events in their reference frames.
2. The reference frames chosen correspond to the "rest" frames of the two cars. Both frames are considered. That is made quite explicit.

I doubt if MacM has actually read the post. Or understood it.

That is what relativity is. A<---- 0.9c------>B is 0.9c to either clock regardless of which clock is placed into any particular frame, including a rest frame whire v = 0.

This is just unclear. Who knows what MacM's crazy notation means? A<---0.9c--->B? Huh?

It does not advocate a principle of relativity. It derives results mathematically and rigorously from one particular set of principles of relativity.

Please note the term "one".

Why?

Sure, the given postulates are for ONE theory only - special relativity. Change the postulates and you'd get different results.

I note here that in the past MacM has agreed that the postulates correctly reflect reality. Which means he must agree that SR is a correct description of relativity, provided he uses logic.

Let's wait for the inevitable flip-flop.

It is noted that indeed his mathematics are correct, howver, that he is still only showing the "Perception" based on one view not both which Relativity applies equally to both views.

Wrong. It is made quite clear in the thread that both views must be considered to derive the relativistic result.

Do it correctly and these functions vanish.

Empty waffle.

You already agreed I did it correctly. Quote: "Indeed his mathematics are correct."

Poor confused MacM.

For example the H&K Atomic Clock test which claimed to have recorded time dilation between clocks being flown around the earth vs a clock stationary on earth, proving Relativity; actually violates Relativity.

The clock on earth did not produce the slowing reading expected (according to Relativity) by the pilot flying the plane.

This is MacM's imagination. He has no relevant data to support this.

You need to ask yourselves "How is it that we are claiming the observation by a remote party (indeed trillions of remote parties, at trillions of different relative velocities) can alter your watch?" It can't and it doesn't. Not even according to relativity.

Which is the whole point. What relativity says and what MacM says it says are completely different.

Nice try James R. Now explain to us how you can say that relative velocity between two clocks is not the same velocity? If I say B is receeding from A with a relative velocity of 0.9c, are you going to tell us that B does not see A as receeding at 0.9c?

MacM ought to read the relevant thread, where this point is explicitly addressed.

Careful when he starts to shoot light signals in one direction. Make him reverse the proceedure and tell you the results.

The results are the opposite, in the situation shown. To produce that result, refer to the thread in question. Simply swap the words "blue" and "green" everywhere, and replace v with -v everywhere. The rest of the argument is the same, and so is the mathematics.

Don't let him confuse you we are not discussing GR, acceleration or gravity affects but reciprocity affects where acceleration, gravity are kept equal.

Let's hope we don't hear anything more about the twin paradox or the H&K experiment, then.

And yet there is no frame in which both A and B are moving at 30Mph...

If you choose a frame where on is moving at 30Mph, then other is stationary (or moving at 60Mph).

How do you confuse yourself and come up with 60Mph? ONe stationary certainly infact please calculate time dilation for each assuming each to view the other from a rest postion (since each always sees themselves at rest) but change 30 Mph to 0.3c.

How much does A see B clcok slow down? ___________

How much does B see A clcok slow down ____________

Please compute the time differential (according to Relativity) between A and B clocks upon their return to a common rest frame and are compared:________

If you want to put the same number into an equation for both A's velocity and B's velocity, then that number must be 15 (and must be negative for one of them).

Not so. You can take the view of either A or B as at rest. If we convert these numbers into %c instead of Mph, so that we can do some actual relavistic calculations:

At 0.15c each clock would see the other clock running only 0.988689 as fast.

At 0.3c (correct view to calculate A or B views) the number is 0.953939.

You are in error on your calculations. You have done it wrong. The 15 Mph view would only be valid to a third observer at rest relative to both A and B.

Mac's concept of "reciprocity" is ill-defined, and doesn't seem to give any useful results (unlike the well-defined concept of symmetry).[/QUOTE]

I would agree you don't get results. That is you don't get time dilation. Which rather is the point now isn't it?

you are trying to confuse simultaneity with reciprocity.
I'm trying to do no such thing, since both are made up concepts that obscure the simplicity of the issue at hand. I'm addressing what relativity says directly, without laying any obscuring misinterpretations on top.

Please note that the time span onyour time sacles are equal.
Why is that a problem?

What is the respective time differential between these events for each observer?
I deliberately kept quantities out of it. The different order of events in each frame should be sufficient.

That post was actually hauled up from an eariler thread in which the focus was the symmetry of length contraction. I will revamp it to better focus on time dilation.

MacM:

Wrong. Both observers' views are taken into account in the given derivation, as they msut be to come to any conclusion. Relativity is, after all, all about the comparison of different reference frames.

I note that you still refuse to calculate the issue as though each car is considered at rest and light beams are sent both directions. Why is that do you suppose? Could it be that you know that to do that you will show that your affect is perception and not reality?

Two points here.

1. The given example deals not with what observers "see", but with the actual times and locations of events in their reference frames.

2. The reference frames chosen correspond to the "rest" frames of the two cars. Both frames are considered. That is made quite explicit.

I doubt if MacM has actually read the post. Or understood it.

Again lets do this correctly and not bias the result by using a single light beam in one direction. Shall we?

This is just unclear. Who knows what MacM's crazy notation means? A<---0.9c--->B? Huh?

Really. You can pretend to be so dumb at times. You only forestall the inevitable. I will explain and then you will be forced to actually address the issue.

If A is considered at rest then B is moving away at 0.9c. If B is considered at rest then A is moving away at 0.9c. That really wasn't that hard now was it?



Nobody has changed any postulates. they have applied the postulates to the entire problem and not quit halfway thorugh the relavistic relationship as you have.

[quote]I note here that in the past MacM has agreed that the postulates correctly reflect reality. Which means he must agree that SR is a correct description of relativity, provided he uses logic.

WHOA. I have never agreed to any such thing. I challenge your assumption that you know and understand the nature of light and its "Apparent" invariance.

But accepting it as stated the problem of reciprocity remains inherent in Relativity when calculated properly and not just one sided views.

Let's wait for the inevitable flip-flop.

You must work for the Bush campaign. Think you say it enough people will believe it. I have been rock steady on this issue of 1 1/2 years. You however have been all over the map trying to find reasons that the calculation cannot be done or that it must include things which it doesn't have to. Any excuse but to directly facr the consequences of Relativity's mandate that such reciprocity be applied if you want to view the reality and not just the perception.

It is made quite clear in the thread that both views must be considered to derive the relativistic result.

Only if you apply your light signal unidirectionally. Apply it the other direction and recompute the relationship with the same relative velocities. What answer do you get?__________________

affle.

You already agreed I did it correctly. Quote: "Indeed his mathematics are correct."

Poor confused MacM.

Correct as far as computaional results but not correct as far as being complete.

MacM's imagination. He has no relevant data to support this.

One must have data to suggest that relative velocity means relative velocity?. That the velocity between two observers is the same to each observer. Gee, I would like to see you prove otherwise, then I can ask why you would use the same figures had you choosen to compute A instead of B.

Which is the whole point. What relativity says and what MacM says it says are completely different.

Bull. Arew you suggesting that Relativity says that the relative velocity is different to each observer? I should hope not. :D

MacM ought to read the relevant thread, where this point is explicitly addressed.

I have read all such threads with equal amazement as to the gullability and short sightedness of some peole.

The results are the opposite, in the situation shown. To produce that result, refer to the thread in question. Simply swap the words "blue" and "green" everywhere, and replace v with -v everywhere. The rest of the argument is the same, and so is the mathematics.

No lest do it my way and wapr the direction of the light beam.

Let's hope we don't hear anything more about the twin paradox or the H&K experiment, then.

You can hope but until you properly address this issue it will not go away.

I'm trying to do no such thing, since both are made up concepts that obscure the simplicity of the issue at hand. I'm addressing what relativity says directly, without laying any obscuring misinterpretations on top.

So you see pointing out that relative velocity between two observers is equal in each observers eyes is "obscuring"?

Why is that a problem?

Not a problem. that is they way it should be and as I have been pointing out that it is. Your discussion addresses simultaneity and time differentials or offsets. You should just have noticed that the affect is recipocal (equally) and that if you consider the issue of time dilation it is going to cancel.


I deliberately kept quantities out of it. The different order of events in each frame should be sufficient.

That post was actually hauled up from an eariler thread in which the focus was the symmetry of length contraction. I will revamp it to better focus on time dilation.

Do that, you might find it interesting but be sure and do both views.

Readers should be aware of James R's response to another thread on the issue of constant relative velocity. A position he now attemps to retract by diversion and irrelevant interjection of personal slander.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3340&stc=1

Check it out. He either doewn't understand relativity or wishes to seep this under the rug by simply denying that if A is moving 30 Mph relative to B that B must also be moving 30 Mph relative to A. That isn't my theory it is simple fact and is an integral part of Relativity.


Bahhh. MacM, you still think you understand relativity??? Invariant velocity is the basic assumption in relativity. Have you ever seen in relativity term g '= 1/sqrt(1-(v'/c)²)???? May be in MacM's relativity. Address the issue, stop making bullshit statement.


Someone is suffering from dillusion but it isn't I unfortunately for you. Your objection here is meaningless. Address the issue of inherent reciprocity in Relativity.


Done many times. But everytime you say: "I skipped the math" and talk something else. We already know that you just too silly to understand the issue and therefore keep coming back to the same question.



Only a fool would not understand the relationship I am speaking of is the non-linear time dilation affect of the formula for various velocities. That damn sure is not linear. Twit.


Very poor math ability. T2=T1*0.8, say....isn't this a linear relationship. Think with your brain MacM, not with your butt.

Yes please do and note that he calculates only one view not the recipocal view using the same relavistic principles. Relativity states wither A or B may be considered at rest.


It was done in the other thread:

A is on earth and C is on Pluto, which is 4.95 light hours away from earth. B in a spacecraft moving at constant velocity 0.9c from A to C. Assumed that both A and C are at rest, a fair assumtion considering the spacecraft velocity involved.

According to A, how long is the journey from A to C? The answer should be straight forward, require very little knowledge of relativity. It is (4.95c hours)/(0.9c)=5.5 hours.

According to B, how long is the journey from A to C? Use equation (t' = g [ t - (b/c)x]), insert in g=2.2941578, t=5.5 hours and x=4.95c hours. It is 2.2941578*(5.5-0.9*4.95)=2.3973949 hours. Note that this result can be also obtained using time dilation formula, that is 5.5/2.2941578=2.3973949 hours.

We should now make the computation from B perspective. Which equation should we use? Equation (t = g [ t' + (b/c)x']) and the parameters should be: g = 2.2941578, t' = 2.3973949 hours (not 5.5 hours, do you know why?) and x' = 0 (because the event is B reaches C). The result is certainly t=5.5 hours!

Read it carefully mister. If don't understand ask. You don't have to send email to "Ask Physicist". There are so many physicists here who understand the issue and able to help you to understand.

Bahhh. MacM, you still think you understand relativity??? Invariant velocity is the basic assumption in relativity. Have you ever seen in relativity term g '= 1/sqrt(1-(v'/c)²)???? May be in MacM's relativity. Address the issue, stop making bullshit statement.

Sorry you have become so blinded but there is no MacM's Relativity there is only Einstien's Relativity and IT has a problem which you rather not address.
Just where inb the HELL do you see "g" in my presentations? If it is there then you know as well as anyone that it is a typo. So get back to the issue.

Done many times. But everytime you say: "I skipped the math" and talk something else. We already know that you just too silly to understand the issue and therefore keep coming back to the same question.

Very poor math ability. T2=T1*0.8, say....isn't this a linear relationship. Think with your brain MacM, not with your butt.

Not done once yet. ALL attempts to sweep this issue under the rug are obvious failures. Now address the issue and knock off the meaningless personal attacks. You make yourself look impotent. Well may you are. Hmmm. :confused:

"v" is the variable asshole. Stop trying to confuse people with your bullshit responses.

MacM:

I note that you still refuse to calculate the issue as though each car is considered at rest and light beams are sent both directions. Why is that do you suppose? Could it be that you know that to do that you will show that your affect is perception and not reality?

To do it, simply swap the words "green" and "blue" in my post, and replace v everywhere with -v.

Done.

WHOA. I have never agreed to any such thing. I challenge your assumption that you know and understand the nature of light and its "Apparent" invariance.

Let's clear this up, shall we?

Respond.

The speed of light is invariant, for all observers. True or false?

Can you give a straight answer?

I have been rock steady on this issue of 1 1/2 years. You however have been all over the map trying to find reasons that the calculation cannot be done or that it must include things which it doesn't have to.

More lies. This is getting tiresome. Not only can the calculation be done, but I
have done it, in my special relativity derivation thread.

Where can we find your calculation? There isn't one, is there?

Only if you apply your light signal unidirectionally. Apply it the other direction and recompute the relationship with the same relative velocities. What answer do you get?__________________

Same as before.

No lest do it my way and wapr the direction of the light beam.

Wapr?

Readers should be aware of James R's response to another thread on the issue of constant relative velocity. A position he now attemps to retract by diversion and irrelevant interjection of personal slander.

As previously pointed out, the quoted response refers to a completely different scenario.

MacM switches scenarios so often, he can't keep track of them all, and often gets them confused.

Mac

JamesR has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of relativity. Of course, your misunderstandings have led to your misleadings of science, which is with whom this poll should ultimately be encapsulated.

Mac

JamesR has nothing to do with your misunderstanding of relativity. Of course, your misunderstandings have led to your misleadings of science, which is with whom this poll should ultimately be encapsulated.

First your stattmentis an unsupported innuendo. I have no misunderstadnings of Relativity. It is hollow words only.

You are now obligated to take the following Challenge:

Challenge

Either perform or apologize.

MacM:

To do it, simply swap the words "green" and "blue" in my post, and replace v everywhere with -v.

Done.

Only if you do not also swap v and -v. Do you really think that would slide by?

Let's clear this up, shall we?

Respond.

The speed of light is invariant, for all observers. True or false?

Can you give a straight answer?

I always have but you choose to not understand the issue. Further this issue has nothing what-so-ever to do with reciprocity and relative velocity affects on clocks.

The point is you do not know why the velocity oif light "Appears" to be invariant. I have made the point many times that assuming a quantum energy affect where light is produced or observed at an energy level of "c" which happens to corelate with the Lorentz Contract oint of zero dimension, that any motion relative to the light source would obviously appear to hold the veloicty of light constant. But that observation has nothing to do with Relativity and its "Assumed" consequences.

It is even more likely that light is nothing more than an energy release at the dimensional collapse to zero. A Star Trek warp drive point where you see the flash is a good example of this affect. Don't bother making comment about thinking Star Trek is reality but stick to the issue of quantum energy and the fact that at an energy equivelent to "c" dimension is also collapsed to zero.

I see light as being nothing more than spatial binding energy being released. Of course yo have no idea what I'm talking about because you are about 50 years behind the point that I have arrived at because you are stuck in a rut.

Repeating this has nothing to do with the current issue. So don't mix the two. You want to argue the feasibility of light invarance. Star another thread. I'll be gald to participate.

More lies. This is getting tiresome. Not only can the calculation be done, but I have done it, in my special relativity derivation thread.

Pardon me for getting blunt but FUCK YOU for your repeated allegations that I lie. I do not. Asshole. If you can't respond correctly to the issue then ddon't think your personal attacks do the job you cannot. Your are a fool.

Where can we find your calculation? There isn't one, is there?

Challenge

Put up or shut up.

Wapr?

Swap, now inlight of this conversation that typo wasn't teally all that hard to understand was it?

As previously pointed out, the quoted response refers to a completely different scenario.

Which does not alter the ultimate conclusion. So what is your point?

MacM switches scenarios so often, he can't keep track of them all, and often gets them confused.

I am obligated to match your changing conditions of the test rather than addressing the issue. Each time yo attempt to circumvent the issue by inserting irrelevant bullshit I have eliminated it to bring you back to the issue.

Now address the issue. Do the calculations or refute (correctly) my calculations in the above Challenge or shut the hell up.

I have no misunderstadnings of Relativity.

MacM, the comic.

The sad thing is that he really believes that he understands SR better than anyone, despite his complete inability to handle the formalism, and his regular breathtakingly ignorant statements of what SR apparently imples.

MacM: It is a waste of time to argue with you, but I believe I have a duty to cast a vote in favor of James R.

You seem prone to making misleading posts. I have yet to notice a misleading post by James R.

I have empathy for your problems with Relativity. The human brain has been conditioned by millions of years of evolution in the world of our senses, which is essentially a world governed by the laws of Newtonian Physics. Our intuition tells us that Newtonian Physics is correct.

Our educational system teaches Newtonian Physics starting with general science courses in grades 6-8 and usually continuing with various physics course through grades 11-12. Few encounter either Relativity or Quantum Theory until college and some do not encounter these topics until graduate school.

It is small wonder that many intelligent people cannot accept the counterintuitive notions of Relativity and Quantum Theory when they are finally presented.

I am reminded of an excellent answer to an old question: “Why do intelligent people believe foolish ideas?”

Answer: “They use their intelligence to find arguments in favor of foolish ideas accepted when they were not using their intelligence (or perhaps when their intelligence had not yet fully developed).”

MacM, the comic.

The sad thing is that he really believes that he understands SR better than anyone, despite his complete inability to handle the formalism, and his regular breathtakingly ignorant statements of what SR apparently imples.

For the record you have failed to do the calculations and post your data.

MacM: It is a waste of time to argue with you, but I believe I have a duty to cast a vote in favor of James R.

Certainly your perogative.

You seem prone to making misleading posts. I have yet to notice a misleading post by James R.

I have empathy for your problems with Relativity.

I have no such problem. Do the calculation and post your data.

The human brain has been conditioned by millions of years of evolution in the world of our senses, which is essentially a world governed by the laws of Newtonian Physics. Our intuition tells us that Newtonian Physics is correct.

Unfortunately this has nothing to do with the issue since I am using relativity's own formulas. Do the calculations and show your data or show a mathemactical flw in my presentation.

Our educational system teaches Newtonian Physics starting with general science courses in grades 6-8 and usually continuing with various physics course through grades 11-12. Few encounter either Relativity or Quantum Theory until college and some do not encounter these topics until graduate school.

It is small wonder that many intelligent people cannot accept the counterintuitive notions of Relativity and Quantum Theory when they are finally presented.[/qkuote]

Talk is cheap. Do the calculations and post your data.

[quote]I am reminded of an excellent answer to an old question: “Why do intelligent people believe foolish ideas?”

Answer: “They use their intelligence to find arguments in favor of foolish ideas accepted when they were not using their intelligence (or perhaps when their intelligence had not yet fully developed).”

Do the calculations and post your data.

MacM: Why should I waste my time doing calculations, knowing that you will not accept the results? I have wasted enough time in the past on other issues. Remember the apparent motion threads?

Arguing with you is like trying to convince a Creationist that evolution is a valid scientific theory. Evidence and reason do not convince those whose beliefs are based on faith.

I have never understood why many with faith based beliefs are not willing to admit to having faith in their beliefs. If you have faith, you do not need evidence or rational arguments.

the issue of recipriation could be demonstrated by the following:

Person A is sitting in an observatory in galaxy A. He is watching person B in galaxy B 19 billion light years away.

A and B are watching each other with a distance separation off 19 billion Ly's.

Because B is 19 billion years ago the person B doesn't even exist to be seen by person A and the same applied vica versa.

OK, peson A and person B both fire of and energy pulse with velocity c towards each other. at the same time.[ by chance]

19 billion ly later both galaxies are destroyed simultaneously. But at the time of destruction both A and B can see each other and sadly regrets firing the beams of energy.

The point being that if A can see B then B can see A if A can't see B then B can't see A. Reflective reciprication is used I think when talking about Newtonian gravity. mass A and mass B are in a state of reciprication. It may be true that there is a time delay between the two regards change due to 'c'

But the change is always recipricatory.

The arguement could be stated:

If Object B is dillated what "real" effects does that dilation have on object A.

Object A exists in a recipriactaory relationship with Object B.

Object A's dillation and Object B's dillation must effect each other.

IN doing so in reality the equivilance of both objects would be the reality not the single object it self but the effect on that object also.

The thinking:
I get the impression that because relativity takes a A OR B approach rather than an A AND B approach we have unnecessary confusion as to the reality of both A and B.

After running a one hour test under such conditions at 0.9c relative velocity the following would be true statements:

Clock A reads 3,600 seconds but percieves Clock B as reading 1,569.2 seconds.

Clock B reads 3,600 seconds but percieves Clock A as reading 1,569.2 seconds.

Upon returning the clocks to a common rest frame they will both still read 3,600 seconds. There is no physical shift of time. The illusion is created by only calculating one half of the actual physical situation.

Note that the "one hour" specified in this post is measured in two different frames.

Let's look at the reality here. This is an illustration of the symmetry inherent in SR.
In each of the following diagrams, the following events are marked:
1. two clocks pass each other and are synchronized to 0.
2. Clock A reads 3600 seconds and stops
3. Clock B reads 3600 seconds and stops
4. Clock A reads 1,569.2 seconds
5. Clock B reads 1,569.2 seconds
<hr><img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3351&stc=1"><hr><img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3352&stc=1"><hr><img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3350&stc=1"><hr>
Note that in Clock A's frame, Clock B keeps ticking after Clock A stops, and vice versa.

MacM can't quite grasp this concept, and wants to somehow force both clocks to stop at the same time in all reference frames.

He can't do it.

He can only make them stop simultaneously in the Mean Velocity frame. In a different thread, he is attempting to prove that this really stops them simultaneously in all frames... but his proof relies on assuming that time is absolute, which is a circular argument.

I think possibly that MacM is and will only refer to the mean velocity frame. Now I woudl agree that this is the intuitive position. I would also normally look at objects in their mean velocity and mean time state.

And of course to do so immediately implies universal mean time. It doesn't prove universal time but it implies universal 'mean' time.


To take the position of mean velocity is to declare an external third frame of reference and that thirdframe of reference is universal mean time.

When we draw a diagram of velocities as Pete has done we automatically can see the mean relationship between two objects. Relativity refuses to accept that a third oberver is involved in this diagram and of course that observer is the one doing the math.

So I guess it is really a POV after all.

You can sit on either object or you can take the "God" position and observe all from frame of absolute rest.Relativeity requires that we take a postion of either A or B were as the real observation is neither A or B but both A and B and this can only be achieved by taking the abstract 'God' POV.

Universal time is really "universal Mean time" if reciprication is absolute.

We always take at least 3 POV in relativity but only ever declare one as valid and this I find puzzling.....

And of course to do so immediately implies universal mean time. It doesn't prove universal time but it implies universal 'mean' time.

It implies the existence of "mean time".

What do you mean by "universal mean time"?

Relativity refuses to accept that a third oberver is involved in this diagram and of course that observer is the one doing the math.
Nonsense

You can sit on either object or you can take the "God" position and observe all from frame of absolute rest.Relativeity requires that we take a postion of either A or B were as the real observation is neither A or B but both A and B and this can only be achieved by taking the abstract 'God' POV.
You can choose any reference frame at all. There are infinitely many to choose from. Here's another one:
<img src="/attachment.php?attachmentid=3353&stc=1">

We always take at least 3 POV in relativity but only ever declare one as valid and this I find puzzling.....

It's about consistency... any reference frame is valid, but the equations are meaningless if you're not consistent about your choice of frame.

MacM: Why should I waste my time doing calculations, knowing that you will not accept the results? I have wasted enough time in the past on other issues. Remember the apparent motion threads?

Arguing with you is like trying to convince a Creationist that evolution is a valid scientific theory. Evidence and reason do not convince those whose beliefs are based on faith.

I have never understood why many with faith based beliefs are not willing to admit to having faith in their beliefs. If you have faith, you do not need evidence or rational arguments.

Now this is interesting.

Why do the math or even comment on the mathematical results presented a :bugeye: s it is all based on faith. HeHeHe. YOU GOT TO BE DRUNK.

He can only make them stop simultaneously in the Mean Velocity frame. In a different thread, he is attempting to prove that this really stops them simultaneously in all frames... but his proof relies on assuming that time is absolute, which is a circular argument.

False. I relied upon the equal finite velocity of recipocal light signals. throughout the synchronization starting and stopping of clocks.

To argue that they were not synchronized and started and stopped simultaneously requires you to reject your own premis that light speed is finite and invariant.

False. I relied upon the equal finite velocity of recipocal light signals. throughout the synchronization starting and stopping of clocks.

To argue that they were not synchronized and started and stopped simultaneously requires you to reject your own premis that light speed is finite and invariant.

Let's take it to the other thread, then, shall we?

Pete:

Nice explanation with diagrams, once again.

MacM doesn't know how to read a spacetime diagram, so you won't see any comments from him other than unsupported assertions that there must be something wrong somewhere. MacM doesn't know where the error is; he just knows there must be one. It's a matter of faith.


MacM:

Only if you do not also swap v and -v. Do you really think that would slide by?

"BLUE Car is at rest. Green Car travels at speed v relative to blue car. Blue car sends a signal to the green car."

Now, do what I said, and we get:

"Green car is at rest. Blue car travels at speed -v relative to green car. Green car sends a signal to the blue car."

We now have a signal going in the opposite direction, while the two cars continue travelling in the same direction as before.

There's your "reciprocity", even though you don't understand it.

The speed of light is invariant, for all observers. True or false?

Can you give a straight answer?

I always have but you choose to not understand the issue.

blah blah blah [snip].

No, you can't give a straight answer to a "yes-no" question.

Poor confused MacM.

The point is you do not know why the velocity oif light "Appears" to be invariant.

Yes I do. It's because it is invariant.

I have made the point many times that assuming a quantum energy affect where light is produced or observed at an energy level of "c" which happens to corelate with the Lorentz Contract oint of zero dimension, that any motion relative to the light source would obviously appear to hold the veloicty of light constant.

Your sentence is gibberish. "c" is a speed, not an "energy level". And I don't know what an "oint" is.

It is even more likely that light is nothing more than an energy release at the dimensional collapse to zero.

Who cares what light is? I asked you a simple "yes/no" question, and you can't answer it.

Pardon me for getting blunt but FUCK YOU for your repeated allegations that I lie. I do not.

Yes you do. You keep lying about most issues, and pretending other ones don't exist.

Pete:

Nice explanation with diagrams, once again.

MacM doesn't know how to read a spacetime diagram, so you won't see any comments from him other than unsupported assertions that there must be something wrong somewhere. MacM doesn't know where the error is; he just knows there must be one. It's a matter of faith.

Fuck you James R. You repeating such bullshit doesn't make it true.

MacM:

"BLUE Car is at rest. Green Car travels at speed v relative to blue car. Blue car sends a signal to the green car."

Now, do what I said, and we get:

"Green car is at rest. Blue car travels at speed -v relative to green car. Green car sends a signal to the blue car."

We now have a signal going in the opposite direction, while the two cars continue travelling in the same direction as before.

There's your "reciprocity", even though you don't understand it.

I understand fine. Since you clarified what you meant. But you simply stated swap cars and then swapped v for -v which made it appear you were simply running the same problem from east to west.

No, you can't give a straight answer to a "yes-no" question.

Poor confused MacM.

When a yes or no answer is appropriate I will give it. When it is not I will qualify my position.

Yes I do. It's because it is invariant.

Very enlightening.

Your sentence is gibberish. "c" is a speed, not an "energy level". And I don't know what an "oint" is.

What about energy level trigger do you not understand? What about the concept of dimensional binding energy do you not understand. I suspect these concepts are simply to far advanced for your pathetic mind to follow.

Who cares what light is?

Everyone should. It very much has to do with the entire issue of what really is Relativity. But it is so much easier to just accept BS in text books and to argue anything not in the text istherefore wrong. What a rut.

I asked you a simple "yes/no" question, and you can't answer it.{/quote]

There is a differance in can't and won't. I can answer but a yes or no is like asking you "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Yes or No.

It is a most inappropriate form of question. You will not extract a yes or no answer from anyone worth their salt that looks beyond the end of their nose.

[quote]Yes you do. You keep lying about most issues, and pretending other ones don't exist.

Well I'll tell you what asshole. You are a fucking idiot. I DO NOT LIE. I HAVE NOT LIED.

So kiss my ass your fucking imbecile. Believe whatever the fuck you want. But you talk through your ass most of the time.

What do you mean by "universal mean time"?

Pete, I'll take this up in another thread some other time as I am unsubscribing to this thread.

MacM:

When a yes or no answer is appropriate I will give it. When it is not I will qualify my position.

The statement is simple:

"The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers."

Either the statement is true or it is false. There are no possible shades of grey here. Either every observer measures the speed of light to have the same value, or some observers measure it to have a different value.

Don't you know what you think?

Your sentence is gibberish. "c" is a speed, not an "energy level".

What about energy level trigger do you not understand?

Everything. "Energy level trigger" is a meaningless concept to me. You've certainly never explained what an "energy level trigger" might be, so it could be a giant pink flamingo, for all I know.

What about the concept of dimensional binding energy do you not understand.

Everything. I've never heard the term "dimensional binding energy" used by anybody with a degree in physics. You've never explained the term, and I don't think you've even mentioned it before in this thread. So, where this came from, I have no idea. Must be MacM fairy land.

I suspect these concepts are simply to far advanced for your pathetic mind to follow.

I suspect they are meaningless terms made up to confuse the unwary.

But it is so much easier to just accept BS in text books and to argue anything not in the text istherefore wrong. What a rut.

To accept or reject something in a text book, the first step is to understand it. You have failed to get to that stage with relativity.

There is a differance in can't and won't. I can answer but a yes or no is like asking you "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Yes or No.

As I said, the given statement is either true or false. You must have a belief one way or the other, unless you want to admit you don't actual understand the terms used in the statement.

It is a most inappropriate form of question. You will not extract a yes or no answer from anyone worth their salt that looks beyond the end of their nose.

I'm sure most people would be able to commit enough to decide whether they thought the speed of light was the same for everybody or not. But not you.

Funny, that.

Well I'll tell you what asshole. You are a fucking idiot. I DO NOT LIE. I HAVE NOT LIED.

It's not worth arguing. The evidence is there for all to see. I'll just wait until you do it again, and you can be sure I will point it out.

So kiss my ass your fucking imbecile. Believe whatever the fuck you want. But you talk through your ass most of the time.

Normally I would moderate your personal attack, but in this case, seeing as I am personally involved, I will not do so.

I ask you to please at least try to remain civil. Swearing doesn't help your arguments one bit. It just tends to provoke people into not liking you. So, I'm going to ask you nicely to stop it, or I will no longer talk to you.

MacM:

The statement is simple:

"The speed of light is the same for all inertial observers."

Either the statement is true or it is false. There are no possible shades of grey here. Either every observer measures the speed of light to have the same value, or some observers measure it to have a different value.

I have refused to play your game for good reason. It is not that I cannot make a statement. It is that it has nothing to do weith the issue. I will not be led away from the root topic. Reciprocity of relative motion produces no net time dilation.

You nor Pete seem to understand that when such dilation occurs has no bearing on the fact of equal dilation (no net change in time).

Don't you know what you think?

Yes I think you are severly confused about reality.

Everything. "Energy level trigger" is a meaningless concept to me. You've certainly never explained what an "energy level trigger" might be, so it could be a giant pink flamingo, for all I know.

Everything. I've never heard the term "dimensional binding energy" used by anybody with a degree in physics. You've never explained the term, and I don't think you've even mentioned it before in this thread. So, where this came from, I have no idea. Must be MacM fairy land.

This is why I prefer to keep this out of this discussion. It has no bearing on the fact of "Net Null" time dilation.

I suspect they are meaningless terms made up to confuse the unwary.

Terms I made up absolutely. To confuse the unwary absolutely not. A new rather unique but enlightening view of the possiblities of invariance. You bet. Not something a true scientist would blow off as "fairy land".

It is precisely the same affect of electrons giving off a photon when they transition from one state to another instantly without existing inbetween states.

I really is a shame you have so little cognitive powers.

To accept or reject something in a text book, the first step is to understand it. You have failed to get to that stage with relativity.

To the contrary. I seem to have surpassed your understandings. You and Pete have both now conceeded my point about "Net Null" time dilation in cases of relative velocity but are so blinded by your faith system of Relativity that you reject the bottom line mathematics which shows that there is no accumulated time differentials between such clocks and that time dilation is restricted to being an illusion a perception of motion and not a physical reality.

If clocks do not record this change for posterity then it is not real. Period.

As I said, the given statement is either true or false. You must have a belief one way or the other, unless you want to admit you don't actual understand the terms used in the statement.

As I said, the given statement is either true or false. You must have a belief one way or the other, unless you want to admit you don't actual understand the terms used and the signifigance that clocks do not record your time dilation. You cannot agree (as you both have finally) that mathematically there is no net time dilation but still claim time dilation exist and is real physically. It is a view of entrenchment, not elightenment.

I'm sure most people would be able to commit enough to decide whether they thought the speed of light was the same for everybody or not. But not you.

Explained above and is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

It's not worth arguing. The evidence is there for all to see. I'll just wait until you do it again, and you can be sure I will point it out.

You use the term "do it again" I would appreciate you being specific here. Just what do you think constitutes a lie in my post.?

Normally I would moderate your personal attack, but in this case, seeing as I am personally involved, I will not do so.

I ask you to please at least try to remain civil. Swearing doesn't help your arguments one bit. It just tends to provoke people into not liking you. So, I'm going to ask you nicely to stop it, or I will no longer talk to you.

As always I give credit when credit is due. I commend you for leaving my words intact. I simply see nothing in the rules that say management can arbitrarily call members liars without absolute evidence, or can assault members character and intelligence with impunity.

You are going to get what you dish out. I will not have you lie about me being a liar. Perhaps you think it increases the value of your post or view to denagrate the views and words of others but sorryfully you are mistaken.

Knock it off and stand on your own two feet.

Now explain to the readers how it is you think you can agree that A - B = 0 and A' - B' = 0 is not signifigant and the fact that physical clocks DO NOT record your time dilation are not the paramount facts of the case which mandate you change your view.?

This thread reminds me why exactly I left.

Having said that, goodbye to y'all -- still!

MacM,

Since you choose not to answer my questions, you have chosen to shut down this conversation.

I will no longer contribute to this thread.

MacM: Obscenity is the last resort of those frustrated by being wrong and unwilling to give up. Why not just admit that your beliefs are faith based like religious faith rather than being based on logical conclusions from supporting evidence? It is not a crime to have faith based beliefs. I probably have a few. Being an atheist, I probably have less than most people.

I will not quote the obscene ad hominem attacks on James R. They speak very loudly without being repeated. I cannot help but comment on the following post by you. . . . . time dilation is restricted to being an illusion a perception of motion and not a physical reality.

If clocks do not record this change for posterity then it is not real. Period.You are apparently unaware that relativist time contraction (dilation, whatever) effects have been observed. All the obfuscation you attempt with various clock scenarios does not refute hard evidence resulting from various experiments. As posted by James R. many times, you do not understand enough about relativity and the supporting evidence to refute it or develop a viable replacement for it.

It is a waste of time to try to change the faith based view of people like MacM, but it sometimes seems worthwhile to try to affect the view of others who might be misled by him.

It amazes me that many intelligent people believe that mainstream physicists are either charlatans or fools (MacM is only one such). If there were glaring errors in Relativity, some mainstream physicist would have pointed them out in a peer reviewed journal and been given a Noble prize. Relativity has survived for almost 100 years. Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, or even lesser minds would surely have noticed a problem if people like MacM had valid criticisms.

Relativity will likely be replaced by a better theory, but it will never be shown to have the glaring errors claimed by the likes of MacM and other fanatics. When modern physics replaced Newtonian Physics, it was not due to glaring errors. Newtonian Physics was shown to be not applicable to conditions beyond the knowledge and measurement technology of those who developed its laws. Its laws could not be extrapolated beyond certain limits into territory unkown prior to the twentieth century. NASA still uses Newtonian gravitational equations for its space program, and nobody makes relativistic time/distance corrections for any but the most extreme situations. Similarly Relativity will never be shown to be incorrect. It will only be shown that its laws cannot be extrapolated beyond certain limits, as was the case for Newtonian Physics.

MacM: Obscenity is the last resort of those frustrated by being wrong and unwilling to give up. Why not just admit that your beliefs are faith based like religious faith rather than being based on logical conclusions from supporting evidence? It is not a crime to have faith based beliefs. I probably have a few. Being an atheist, I probably have less than most people.

I will not quote the obscene ad hominem attacks on James R. They speak very loudly without being repeated. I cannot help but comment on the following post by you.You are apparently unaware that relativist time contraction (dilation, whatever) effects have been observed. All the obfuscation you attempt with various clock scenarios does not refute hard evidence resulting from various experiments. As posted by James R. many times, you do not understand enough about relativity and the supporting evidence to refute it or develop a viable replacement for it.

It is a waste of time to try to change the faith based view of people like MacM, but it sometimes seems worthwhile to try to affect the view of others who might be misled by him.

It amazes me that many intelligent people believe that mainstream physicists are either charlatans or fools (MacM is only one such). If there were glaring errors in Relativity, some mainstream physicist would have pointed them out in a peer reviewed journal and been given a Noble prize. Relativity has survived for almost 100 years. Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, or even lesser minds would surely have noticed a problem if people like MacM had valid criticisms.

Relativity will likely be replaced by a better theory, but it will never be shown to have the glaring errors claimed by the likes of MacM and other fanatics. When modern physics replaced Newtonian Physics, it was not due to glaring errors. Newtonian Physics was shown to be not applicable to conditions beyond the knowledge and measurement technology of those who developed its laws. Its laws could not be extrapolated beyond certain limits into territory unkown prior to the twentieth century. NASA still uses Newtonian gravitational equations for its space program, and nobody makes relativistic time/distance corrections for any but the most extreme situations. Similarly Relativity will never be shown to be incorrect. It will only be shown that its laws cannot be extrapolated beyond certain limits, as was the case for Newtonian Physics.

Lets get something straight. Obsenities have nothing to do with the concept but were in reply to his unwarranted and false innuendos as well as a poor habit of calling people a liar. I do not lie. I have not lied and he knows it.

It is evidence in fact of his poor position and inability to properly respond to the question at hand.

As far as Relativity goes you can have your opinion but much of what you say is in fact just plain false. You are another that seem to believe H&K is proof. It has been shown to be totally unsupported in its claims and quite likely outright deliberate fraud.

In closing I will also note that you have failed to provide anything of substance to the question at hand. Talk is cheap. Proof another matter.

What evidence for Relativity there is has alternative explanations but that is not at issue here either. The only thing at issue here is the reciprocity mandated by Relativity which nullifies any net time dilation.

You are correct in that your view is recorded in our text books; however, it is my view that is recorded by clocks. I'll believe what I see and is supported mathematically and not what is nothing more than claimed by extrapolation of mathematical theory which actually remains untested with positive results.

Above he now withdraws claiming I have refused to answer his questions. That is a red herring. I have not declined to answer anything that had merit to this issue. He has tried to interject other issues and questions in a fishing trip expedition to find something that I couldn't answer or got wrong so as to make claim that the issue at hand is a result of my lack of understanding.

He and Pete have both ultimately, after many months of evasive responses to this issue, admitted my claims of net null time dilation is true. James even agreed that for a clock to show time dilation due to relative velocity alone violates Relativity.

But both steadfastly refuse to go the final step and admit the phenomena must therefore be perception and not physical reality. That is OK. It is thier perogative but it is also a far cry from the assertions you make here that I am a lost soul that does not understand Relativity.

Pete and I disagree but Pete has posted some excellent material, it just doesn't resolve the issue in the manner he seems to believe that it does. You don't see me cursing him. Why because he has not committed the atrocious conduct James R wrongfully seems to think bolsters his standing in the debate.

He and Pete have both ultimately, after many months of evasive responses to this issue, admitted my claims of net null time dilation is true. James even agreed that for a clock to show time dilation due to relative velocity alone violates Relativity.

Mac, these statements are either lies or self-delusion.
Either way, they are falsehoods.

Mac, these statements are either lies or self-delusion.
Either way, they are falsehoods.

How can you make this statement.? Are you denying that you agreed that the A-B and B-A are equal and equate to "0" but that you then continued on to say but it is meaningless?

Or that James said this:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3356&stc=1

Now my statements are factual. They are neither a lie nor a dilusion. If you did not mean to say what you said then clarify but don't flip-flop and then claim it is my doing and you didn't say what you said. If you like I will go back and link to your statement.

Are you denying that you agreed that the A-B and B-A are equal and equate to "0" but that you then continued on to say but it is meaningless?
No. I'm denying that after many months of evasive responses to this issue, I admitted your claims of net null time dilation are true.

There were no months of evasive response to that issue, because you only formulated it a short time ago. You appear to be mixing concepts in your head.

Your claims regarding your meaningless concept of "net null time dilation" are not something I agreed to.

James even agreed that for a clock to show time dilation due to relative velocity alone violates Relativity.
This assertion is particularly serious.
James did not agree to that statement.
There was a misunderstanding at the time, which has been explained to you.
For you to continue to make that assertion is either a deliberate falsehood, or self delusion.


Side thought:
How can one tell if one is suffering a delusion?

No. I'm denying that after many months of evasive responses to this issue, I admitted your claims of net null time dilation are true.

There were no months of evasive response to that issue, because you only formulated it a short time ago. You appear to be mixing concepts in your head.

Your claims regarding your meaningless concept of "net null time dilation" are not something I agreed to.


This assertion is particularly serious.
James did not agree to that statement.
There was a misunderstanding at the time, which has been explained to you.
For you to continue to make that assertion is either a deliberate falsehood, or self delusion.


Side thought:
How can one tell if one is suffering a delusion?

I'll limit my responses to only three.

1 - I have asserted for over 1 1/2 years here from day one that time dilation of clocks was a false concept. I can not understand your comment to the contrary.

2 - If you or James did not mean what you said (I have merely quoted James R's response and paraphrased yours), then it is up to you and he to clarify what you meant. It is not fair for you to assert I have misquoted or mis-stated your views. They are in writting as part of the record.

I certainly have no objection to somebody clarifying something that is or can be mis-interpreted but I do object to putting the blame on the reader that makes that interpretation of such satements.

3 - I suggest the best gage of delusion would be to have something which is clearly testable and not merely subjectively open to interpretation. In that regard let me point out James R, recent proclamation in QQ's thread:

Link to James R's Statement

This is a most obvious outright flaw of mental process.

Wheels rotate and power a speedometer. The driver of a car sees his speedometer read 100 Mph. The motorcycle cop behind the bill board with a high power camera will record a picture of your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph and the state trooper's cruiser that pulls up along side telling you to pull over looks through your window as he slowly passes you to cut you off and force you to stop, sees your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph.

Each of these views are frame dependant and none see anything but 100 Mph indicated on your speedometer. Clearly the wheel's Rpm have not altered as a function of relative velocity of frames as is being suggested by James.

This is a proveable, and obvious test done at a variety of speeds millions of times each day. Now this situation is directly applicable to other relavistic issues and claims. If wheel Rpm does not change with relative velocity it becomes clear that issues of contraction, etc are mathematical artifacts and not physical realities.

Just as with clocks you have perception and you have reality, the two are not the same. It seems the issue of who is dillusional is most proveable.

Thanks.

Give up fellows: MacM is the way and the truth and the light of the world. He has finally shown that Einstein and all the great minds of the twentieth century who accepted relativity were either deluded or part of a vast conspiracy to suppress the UniKEF theory brilliantly conceived by MacM.

I wonder if now he might deign to enlighten us on the errors inherent in Quantum theory. Now that he has shown Einstein to be a nut, why not put down Bohr, Heisenberg, et all?

1 - I have asserted for over 1 1/2 years here from day one that time dilation of clocks was a false concept. I can not understand your comment to the contrary.
Your "net null time dilation" concept is newly introduced.

2 - If you or James did not mean what you said (I have merely quoted James R's response and paraphrased yours), then it is up to you and he to clarify what you meant. It is not fair for you to assert I have misquoted or mis-stated your views. They are in writting as part of the record.
I certainly have no objection to somebody clarifying something that is or can be mis-interpreted but I do object to putting the blame on the reader that makes that interpretation of such satements.
It is up to you to read those clarifications and not ignore them.
They are in writing as part of the record.
If you don't understand any clarification, please ask.

3 - I suggest the best gage of delusion would be to have something which is clearly testable and not merely subjectively open to interpretation. In that regard let me point out James R, recent proclamation in QQ's thread:
Dealt with in the appropriate thread.

Your "net null time dilation" concept is newly introduced.

False. Perhaps I have changed wording to better describe the affect but the original 3 Clock Paradox, and every post since, then have claimed time dilation is an illusion of motion and not physical reality. That means "Net Null Time Dilation".

It is up to you to read those clarifications and not ignore them.
They are in writing as part of the record.
If you don't understand any clarification, please ask.

I don't recall any clarification which address the statement. I recall the agreement but then a subjective statement that it was meaningless. That hardly qualifies as clarification.

Give up fellows: MacM is the way and the truth and the light of the world. He has finally shown that Einstein and all the great minds of the twentieth century who accepted relativity were either deluded or part of a vast conspiracy to suppress the UniKEF theory brilliantly conceived by MacM.

I wonder if now he might deign to enlighten us on the errors inherent in Quantum theory. Now that he has shown Einstein to be a nut, why not put down Bohr, Heisenberg, et all?

Funny, I don't recall saying anything about UniKEF or its underlying concepts regarding these issues. The fact is UniKEF does contain time dilation. :D

So stick it in your smart ass ear.

3 - I suggest the best gage of delusion would be to have something which is clearly testable and not merely subjectively open to interpretation. In that regard let me point out James R, recent proclamation in QQ's thread:

Link to James R's Statement

This is a most obvious outright flaw of mental process.

Wheels rotate and power a speedometer. The driver of a car sees his speedometer read 100 Mph. The motorcycle cop behind the bill board with a high power camera will record a picture of your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph and the state trooper's cruiser that pulls up along side telling you to pull over looks through your window as he slowly passes you to cut you off and force you to stop, sees your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph.

Each of these views are frame dependant and none see anything but 100 Mph indicated on your speedometer. Clearly the wheel's Rpm have not altered as a function of relative velocity of frames as is being suggested by James.From the stationary policeman the wheels appear to be moving slightly slower (ie revolutions per stationary policeman's second) than they are from the point of view of the policeman on the motorcycle. The reason is that time is running slower for the cycle-cop.

This is a proveable, and obvious test done at a variety of speeds millions of times each day. Now this situation is directly applicable to other relavistic issues and claims.Er, I don't believe that tests done at 100mph would yield usable results. The time dilation must be so miniscule as to be unmeasurable, certainly by human consciousness. Please don't tell me that you're basing your belief on the fact that real stationary policemen and cycling policemen see the same speed!! If wheel Rpm does not change with relative velocity it becomes clear that issues of contraction, etc are mathematical artifacts and not physical realities.Well, sure if time dilation, spatial contraction and Special Relativity are false, then sure. But they are not false, and wheel rpm does change with relative velocity.

Anyway, my response was that JamesR's thread wasn't misleading, although it was as boring as hell. Isn't there any way at all to explain time dilation without those tedious equations? I got lost after the third line.

Anyway, my response was that JamesR's thread wasn't misleading, although it was as boring as hell. Isn't there any way at all to explain time dilation without those tedious equations? I got lost after the third line.

Your input is appreciated. We concur that it is easier to discuss the issue philosophically than it is mathematically and I certanly agree that making my case at 100 Mph is less than impressive. :D

I draw your atention however to the following thread and post where the case is made (I believe) at 0.9c. If true then your conclusions are false.

Time Dilation Analysis

Silas: Unfortunately, one must deal with equations for almost all explanations of the laws of physics. Intuition and human sensory perceptions are just not reliable enough to deal with most aspects of modern physics.

Our perceptions are just not accurate enough and our intuition is incorrect for many situations.

Sometimes even what you correctly measure can be misleading without some careful analysis. For example. Parallax methods can accurately measure the distance to a star one light year away (if there was such a star). Suppose a super nova or some other explosive event resulted in ejected material traveling toward the Earth at 11/12 the speed of light. A telescope could allow observation of such an event. The event would be seen from Earth 12 months after it occurred, at which time, the ejected material would be 1/12 of a light year from earth. About 33 days after the event was observed, ejected material (radiation, particles, whatever) would enter our atmosphere and be noticed. If it were known that the observed material was due to the event at the star, a naive person might conclude that the material traveled faster than the speed of light. After all, it arrived 33 days after the event which happened one light year away.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=41111

Relativity ? What that ?

It is a waste of time to try to change the faith based view of people like MacM, but it sometimes seems worthwhile to try to affect the view of others who might be misled by him.

It amazes me that many intelligent people believe that mainstream physicists are either charlatans or fools (MacM is only one such). If there were glaring errors in Relativity, some mainstream physicist would have pointed them out in a peer reviewed journal and been given a Noble prize. Relativity has survived for almost 100 years. Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, or even lesser minds would surely have noticed a problem if people like MacM had valid criticisms.

Actually I saw not not one bit of physics or science in your post. You brandish your atheism as a badge of truth and honor. I am reminded of Matthew 6:1 quoting Jesus: "Take good care not to practice your righteousness in front of men in order to be observed by them them, ..."

Can I trust your honesty? Can I believe ,with at least the faith of a man willing to take you at face value? You seem to deny possibilities of any glaring erors in SR, not by a discussion of the physics ,that I assume you support, but by frawing over pesonalities tou toss at us with a casual flick of your unbiased atheistic heart. Your post said to me that glaring errors are an impossibility, but I also gleaned from the post that you, dinaoaur would be able to identify a glaring error when you saw one, and that if you did discover such a gap in SR theory that you would not hesitate for a single dilated second in broadcasting such to humankind, who waits with calm patience for good oh messages from a man such as yourself.

Well let me tell you, I am such a mainstream physicist, and I catagorically deny any resemblance of being on any recogniozable level of theoretical expertise in SR theory with the names you mentioned. Further I cagtagorically deny having ever made an attempt to publish any glaring errors of SR theory in any mainstream physics journals. Mr. Dinosaur, if you had some information that established a glaring error in the claims of the divinity of Mr. Jesus, would you write a letter to the Pope with any expectation that he would stand up to the world and declare that "we've made a horrible mistake." and then give the orders to all the piriests and nuns and bishops to "pack it in and lock it up folks, and I'm outta here" ?

The equivalence of inertial frames holds that the measure of light speed will always be C from whatever frame of reference used and this is independent of the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer; Some simple comparisons of the physical properties of two commonly used reference frames in theoretical studies, the embankment, AKA the planet earth, Ve, and the passenger train(s), Vn may be helpful.


Inertia does mean to you "the resistace to change" I presume and that the inertia of one reference frame that is effectively infinite with respect to another could not be considered as an equivalent inertial frame with the lesser inertial object.

Further, I have to believe that a massive object that was moving in a trajectory that was measurably indistinguishable from straight line motion for the purpose of any SR theopretical reasons, where all significant past present and future coordinate points on the surface and volume of the major inertial frame are predictable to any degree of resolution or accuracy desired, that virtually all Vn inertial reference frames, n = 1, 2 ... inf, must necessarily undergo acceleration in order that any relative motion Ve - Vn > 0 be observed by any observer and that that the non-accelerated, or acceleratable, infinitely massive, invariant straight-line and uniform motion is void of any scientific history of any observed, detected, felt, measured or even sensed or intuited acclerated motion in the SR sense, and with a scientific history of having not the slightest physical possibility of ever being observed to varied the described motion and that the only way a Vn object, an inertial frame of reference once achieving a velocity Vn > Ve can ever be deemed "at rest" with respect to the Ve frame is for the Vn frame to stop.


Some physical attributes of Ve are:
Mass (grams): 5 x 10^27. Volume (km^3) = 1.09 x 10^12 . Surface area (km^2) = 5.11 x 10^8. circumference (km) = 40047. escape velocity = 11.2. Gravity acceleration (cm/sec^2) = 980
Velocity components (km/sec).rotation. = .496 orbital velocity = 29.8 solar (galactic) 208 Circumference km 6378
Turning rate degrees/sec 10^-8.
Some scaled down solar system numbers:
Earth radius 1 cm.
sun diameter 109 cm.
earth orbit radius 233 meters
Pluto at 9 km
Mercury at 87 meters.


There are no measured affects on Ve due to the intrinsic motion of Ve. such as observed in Vn when rolling over distorted and worn tracks, The prediction of coordinates for any location f oposition for past, present and future surface and volume locations is as exact as conditions demand. Ve overwhelmingly exceeds the inertia of any other Vn frame(s) in inertial mas, that this alone is sufficient to grant Ve official “preferred frame of reference status”, whether liked or not. All Ve surface borne frames of reference inherit all the attributes of Ve motion and, from the foregoing, all observed Vn - Vw > 0 relative motion, Vn necessarily accelerated to acquire Vn > 0 and hence any assumption that Vn = 0 with respect to Ve thereafter is a proved physical impossibility. all Ve based references frames Vn, for all n, all necessarily suffer acceleration in order to create a state of relative velocity. Vn can only claim Vn = 0 under the conditions that Ve - Vn = 0. Ve never is observed to aquire motion other than that described above.

If this were a reas0onably coherent post, with reasonablyaccurate offerings of factual reality, would the level of the light thrown on the subject matter rise to the relative level of "glaring", in your opinion? You do know, don't you that Richard Feynman has given up the ghost (in the machine) and that he is Deceased?

MacM, did you have a kid recently? You old dog.

Time to sue Viagra for pain and suffering.

GeistKeisel: You seized on the following posted by me and seemed to have read far more into my statements than intended.It is not a crime to have faith based beliefs. I probably have a few. Being an atheist, I probably have less than most people.Did the above deserve the following?You brandish your atheism as a badge of truth and honor.

. . . but by frawing over pesonalities tou toss at us with a casual flick of your unbiased atheistic heart.

Mr. Dinosaur, if you had some information that established a glaring error in the claims of the divinity of Mr. Jesus, would you write a letter to the Pope with any expectation that he would stand up to the world and declare that "we've made a horrible mistake." and then give the orders to all the piriests and nuns and bishops to "pack it in and lock it up folks, and I'm outta here" ?Following are my comments on the last part of the above from your post. While I believe in the neither the divinity of Christ nor the existence of god, I have no expectation of ever finding compelling evidence or a proof relating to such issues. Faith based belief rather than proof is all that any intelligent atheist or intelligent believer can ever hope to have. I believe that observable evidence is consistent with (not a proof of) my atheist view, and a religious person similarly believes that the observable evidence supports his view.

If I thought I thought I had evidence refuting some issue of Christian (or some other) theology, I would not expect it to be accepted by the leaders of a religious sect. I would not waste my time presenting any such evidence. The only time I ever argue with those who believe in some religion is when they insist on trying to convert me.

I consider the analogy silly. Unlike a religious leader, I would expect a mainstream scientist to be swayed by valid evidence. If knowledgeable physicists did not accept my arguments, I would assume that I had done a bad job of presenting it or that there was some error in my conclusions.I have not posted much (if any) physics or science to this thread. James R and others have done an excellent job of providing arguments counter to MacM beliefs, if not at this thread, then at others.

It is my opinion that MacM either ignores or does not understand the arguments of those who have a credible knowledge of SR/GR, making it a waste of time to argue with him on these issues. I remember arguing with him in a lengthy thread about an illusion relating to apparent motion, and I think I have argued with him to no avail on other occasions.

Many, many years ago, I managed to pass an undergraduate which included SR. I remember being convinced by the logic supporting the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation calculations, but felt that the implications were counter intuitive. Since then, I have seldom had the patience to make a detailed analysis of discussions of SR.

SR has been accepted for about 100 years. I just do not think that thought experiments involving twin journeys, or multiple clocks or other simple scenarios could show that there is something wrong with the theory. Something far more subtle and difficult to comprehend will be required.

Mainstream physicists are neither charlatans nor fools. There is a lot of evidence supporting SR. For example, check the article at the following URL.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.v.../michelson.html The following can be found there if you read far enough into the article. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).Whatever one might think is implied/proven by the M/M experiment, all sorts of evidence seems to support various SR concepts derived from Einstein’’s interpretation of that experiment. In modern times experiments have verified that the counterintuitive results obtained via use of Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid. Objects moving at relativistic speeds act as though time and distance variables are different for them than for the stationary observer. All the arguments involving the twin paradox and other clock experiments are basically an argument relating to the validity of the Lorentz Transformation calculations.

Either the Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid or they are not. The experimental evidence supports the Lorentz Transformation calculations. Verbal descriptions of various clock experiments accompanied by different calculations disagree with those calculations, but can be made consistent with intuitive notions. I accept the mathematics and the opinions of experts rather than my intuition.

GeistKeisel: You seized on the following posted by me and seemed to have read far more into my statements than intended.Did the above deserve the following?Following are my comments on the last part of the above from your post. While I believe in the neither the divinity of Christ nor the existence of god, I have no expectation of ever finding compelling evidence or a proof relating to such issues. Faith based belief rather than proof is all that any intelligent atheist or intelligent believer can ever hope to have. I believe that observable evidence is consistent with (not a proof of) my atheist view, and a religious person similarly believes that the observable evidence supports his view.

If I thought I thought I had evidence refuting some issue of Christian (or some other) theology, I would not expect it to be accepted by the leaders of a religious sect. I would not waste my time presenting any such evidence. The only time I ever argue with those who believe in some religion is when they insist on trying to convert me.

I consider the analogy silly. Unlike a religious leader, I would expect a mainstream scientist to be swayed by valid evidence. If knowledgeable physicists did not accept my arguments, I would assume that I had done a bad job of presenting it or that there was some error in my conclusions.I have not posted much (if any) physics or science to this thread. James R and others have done an excellent job of providing arguments counter to MacM beliefs, if not at this thread, then at others.

It is my opinion that MacM either ignores or does not understand the arguments of those who have a credible knowledge of SR/GR, making it a waste of time to argue with him on these issues. I remember arguing with him in a lengthy thread about an illusion relating to apparent motion, and I think I have argued with him to no avail on other occasions.

Many, many years ago, I managed to pass an undergraduate which included SR. I remember being convinced by the logic supporting the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation calculations, but felt that the implications were counter intuitive. Since then, I have seldom had the patience to make a detailed analysis of discussions of SR.

SR has been accepted for about 100 years. I just do not think that thought experiments involving twin journeys, or multiple clocks or other simple scenarios could show that there is something wrong with the theory. Something far more subtle and difficult to comprehend will be required.

Mainstream physicists are neither charlatans nor fools. There is a lot of evidence supporting SR. For example, check the article at the following URL.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.v.../michelson.html The following can be found there if you read far enough into the article. Whatever one might think is implied/proven by the M/M experiment, all sorts of evidence seems to support various SR concepts derived from Einstein’’s interpretation of that experiment. In modern times experiments have verified that the counterintuitive results obtained via use of Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid. Objects moving at relativistic speeds act as though time and distance variables are different for them than for the stationary observer. All the arguments involving the twin paradox and other clock experiments are basically an argument relating to the validity of the Lorentz Transformation calculations.

[/quote=dinosaur]Either the Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid or they are not. The experimental evidence supports the Lorentz Transformation calculations. Verbal descriptions of various clock experiments accompanied by different calculations disagree with those calculations, but can be made consistent with intuitive notions. I accept the mathematics and the opinions of experts rather than my intuition.


If I offended you about your atheist beliefs I see now how irrelevant it all was. I just have this thing about beliefs in general, and how they really have no place in any scientific discussion. I am not familiar with MacM and your discussion with him, but you must realize that in a balck and white discussion, openly one color can win.
I sense a weakness in your basic train of thought regarding SR as you discuss he the Lorentz ransformation, various clock experiments and so on without giving any details. The weakness is your analyzing SR from the points of view of more popular and morecomplex examples where the basics get lost or omitted and rote robotics kicks in and all we hear are the machinery of cranking formulae..

I mean popular belief as opposed to getting down to the nitty gritty and looking at the motions of everything and the basic postulates before one starts cranking out formulae.The fact that light travels at 300000 km/sec and that its is independent of the source of the light isn't such a difficult topic to comprehend and as to me, it has absolutely nothing to do with SR. You seem not lost, but focused on a level, that is to my obervation, mentally restricting. One caught up in the in the complex detail of the structured theory and apply the same to sohpisticated examples of real life even, tend to have had ones instincts or desire even to scrutinize the fundamental bases of SR. I am overstating a bit I admit, but as sophisticated the mathematics of "higher " SR topic is, the theory always depends on the validity of the basic assumptions and postulates. For instance if the concept of "equivalent inertial frames" was to go away, so would SR.

I want to focus your attention on a basic matter, that while SR is ultimately involved in the, the discussion is not tied to SR specifically. The matter is the very question of inertia, or the resistance to change, which is a reality in our universe. Twenty metric tons of lead sitting on the ground has a larger, or higher inertia, than a bucket of water, to be extreme.

Now, for all intents and purposes a 10^6 cubic meter chunk of lead is infinite, inertia wise with respect to most inertial frames and the lead and most other inertial frames are therefore not equivalent, far from it. A bicycle rider moving past our hunk of lead spread over a kilometer or two is used as the cyclist's frame of reference from which he measures velocity. Let us construct the usual SR paramteters at this point and assume the cyclist has no information that he is moving and as someone told him that he and cycle were equivalent inertial frames he used the usual SR construct and assumed hhe was at rest with respect tot he hunk of lead and that it was the lead that was moving.

You and I have to agree on one matter here that is a slam dunk physical reality, which is, that the hunk of lead will never accelerate in any fashion; that any assumption the cyclist has with regard to that acceleration being the contrary to what I just included you as accepting with me: The lead ain't never gonna accelerate as a hunk of lead, ever. Whatever theoretical value the cyclists putting himself at rest, it was the cyclist and the cyclist alone that accelerated and to deny his own motion and to ascribe his real accelerated motion to the hunk of lead is a mathematical manipulation, void of physical reality. But then so was the Ptolemaic system of circles within circles that was as accurate a predictor of stellar motion as one was willing to juggle circles around. Ptolemaic astronomy worked ,within the limits of the system.


So what, some will say, including yourself perhaps, when you think of a number of experiments that you (an others) claim as supporting SR. Let me give an example. I posted an anaysis of a gedanken experiment where a photon was emitted at the midpont of two reflectors moving on a frame and where my calculations by laboriously following each reflection and time sequence of the whole process came to an understanding why the moving and stationary frame would measure a different time for the emission and arrival at the source simultaneously. For the stationary frame the question is trival as the round trip of the photons was the same as was the time each photon took to get reflected back to the midpoint. In the post it looked like the same answer would inevitably show up. Sure enough when one adds and subtracts the distances of the moving frame the deifferences seemed to all add up to the same time for the round trip. Except, for one little experimental fact.
|L________________M__________________R|

assume motion to the right, velocity = v and the photon emitted left will arrive at the left reflector before the photon on the aright arrives at the reflector there.

| L|<--------------0--M-----------------> | R|
Above 0 measures the point of emission of the photons, which remains invariant.the space where the L is located, is vt and you can see he right photon is 2vt from the reflector there.

Just as an argument now I am going to use the postulates of light that what ever else is true photons move the same absolute distance in equal times and that he moions of light ae independent of the motion of the source. Therefore, even if the frame is moving the point where the photons were emitted is a phyisical invariant fact. Now as we already know the answer, that the photons arrived simultaneously, at the very same midpoint from which they were emitted, we also know that in the final rush to the midpoint the instant the photons were moving toward each other, their mutiual midpoint was already defined, before the frame moved into that position of simultaneous arrival of frame and photons.

Here however, let us not forget the motion, with repsect to the photons that is. As the halfway point was defined, it is also true that up until the instant of mutual arrival of frame and photon the photon moving the same direction as the frame was always closer to the midpoint than was the photon moving