From a lot of time discussions about SRT ant Relativity in this forum are circling, as I see it, around one and the same mis-interpetation - the relative relocity. I will try to explain this with the only purpose to decrease amout of posts about SRT n this forum (take care, the database can crash again :p )

First, how can be defined 'Frame of Reference /FR/', when two objects are in one and the same FR. For example if we have three objects A,B and C and :

A B---------->v C--------> v

A v<----------B v<--------C

it is known that B and C are going away or are approaching tio A with one and the same velocity B and C are in one FR.

What will happens however in the following case:

v<----------B A C---------->

C and B are moving in opposite directions? Are they in one and the same FR?

The answer is yes, B and C are again in one and the same FR. Evaen if they move with the speed of light they are in one and the same FR no matter in what direction they are moving wrt A. This is very important because the velocity v which is included in gamma is not the same mechanical velocity which is used in classical mechanics, in another words it is possible two frames to move one wrt other with velocity bigger then c (in the above case) but their relative velocity used by SRT will be 0!

the relative velocity between two frames can be found only if we has third FR in rest, then:

VBC(relative) = |VAB| - |VAC|

the modul velocities - |VAB| and |VAC| are the magnitudes of velocities of frames B and C wrt A not caring of direction of movement. In the same way as we calculate kinetic energy T we are not caring about the direction of movement only by the magnitude!

Please try to understand what 'relative velocity' means in SRT.

in another words it is possible two frames to move one wrt other with velocity bigger then c (in the above case) but their relative velocity used by SRT will be 0!

I thought that nothing can move faster then c, no matter what frame your in.

"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the same to all inertial observers, is the same in all directions..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

:confused: :confused:

The answer is yes, B and C are again in one and the same F
Hi XGen,
That's an interesting misconception! You've reached that conclusion by knowledge of how length contraction and time dilation are calculated, right? There's more to special relativity than you know!

Think about this:
If B's velocity is v, then C's velocity is -v, and vice versa.

This makes a big difference. If you look at the Lorentz transform, you'll see that the gamma factor is not the only factor involving v.
their relative velocity used by SRT will be 0
In fact, the relative velocity predicted by SR between B and C is 2v/(1+v²/c²)

In fact, the relative velocity predicted by SR between B and C is 2v/(1+v²/c²)

You have just quoted a modified version of the Velocity Addition Formula. It predicts the terminal velocity of a missle fired from a shuddlecraft as viewed by the stationary mothership observer. You have taken v and u being equal as being mathematically equilvelent to 2v. Which is acceptable mathematically.

w = (v + u) / ( 1+ (vu)/c²).

In addition to that fact you are incorrect. Where two objects are launched in opposite directions the relative velocity between them as viewed by them is the collective velocity.

If you want to argue this point I suggest you provide direction to SR's rules on just how you know which formula to apply when you come across two objects in relative motion and know nothing about the origin of that motion. :D

From a lot of time discussions about SRT ant Relativity in this forum are circling, as I see it, around one and the same mis-interpetation - the relative relocity. I will try to explain this with the only purpose to decrease amout of posts about SRT n this forum (take care, the database can crash again :p )

First, how can be defined 'Frame of Reference /FR/', when two objects are in one and the same FR. For example if we have three objects A,B and C and :

A B---------->v C--------> v

A v<----------B v<--------C

it is known that B and C are going away or are approaching tio A with one and the same velocity B and C are in one FR.

What will happens however in the following case:

v<----------B A C---------->

C and B are moving in opposite directions? Are they in one and the same FR?

The answer is yes, B and C are again in one and the same FR. Evaen if they move with the speed of light they are in one and the same FR no matter in what direction they are moving wrt A. This is very important because the velocity v which is included in gamma is not the same mechanical velocity which is used in classical mechanics, in another words it is possible two frames to move one wrt other with velocity bigger then c (in the above case) but their relative velocity used by SRT will be 0!

the relative velocity between two frames can be found only if we has third FR in rest, then:

VBC(relative) = |VAB| - |VAC|

the modul velocities - |VAB| and |VAC| are the magnitudes of velocities of frames B and C wrt A not caring of direction of movement. In the same way as we calculate kinetic energy T we are not caring about the direction of movement only by the magnitude!

Please try to understand what 'relative velocity' means in SRT.
Xgen, I read your post to mean that two FR's could not measure their relative velocity with no other references needed? Radar reflections or transponders are commonly believed to be able to measure the relative motion wrt two inertial frames. Did I err here?
A three frame problem to analyze Xgen. Let me know what you think. Thanks (http://www.msnusers.com/Savadance4me/Documents/aatri.GIF)
Geistkiesel :cool:

If you want to argue this point I suggest you provide direction to SR's rules on just how you know which formula to apply when you come across two objects in relative motion and know nothing about the origin of that motion. :D
Einstein Velocity Addition (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html) at Hyperphysics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)

Let me know if you can't work it out.

From a lot of time discussions about SRT ant Relativity in this forum are circling, as I see it, around one and the same mis-interpetation - the relative relocity.

What will happens however in the following case:

v<----------B A C---------->

C and B are moving in opposite directions? Are they in one and the same FR?

The answer is yes, B and C are again in one and the same FR. Evaen if they move with the speed of light they are in one and the same FR no matter in what direction they are moving wrt A. This is very important because the velocity v which is included in gamma is not the same mechanical velocity which is used in classical mechanics, in another words it is possible two frames to move one wrt other with velocity bigger then c (in the above case) but their relative velocity used by SRT will be 0!

the relative velocity between two frames can be found only if we has third FR in rest, then:

VBC(relative) = |VAB| - |VAC|

the modul velocities - |VAB| and |VAC| are the magnitudes of velocities of frames B and C wrt A not caring of direction of movement. In the same way as we calculate kinetic energy T we are not caring about the direction of movement only by the magnitude!

Please try to understand what 'relative velocity' means in SRT.

I find this interesting.

1 - You start by saying you are going to correct all us confused anti-relativists.

2 - You end by repeating my claim that there is no time dilation between B and C. (One which James R and many others have chastized me and called me names saying I don't understand relativity, etc).

3 - You justify this by claiming their motion is not relative. :eek:

I ask you to comment on my statement that "Given a relative velocity between two objects in space you cannot compute time dilation".

You'll make some song and dance about B and C don't have relative velocity. Well they damn sure do. Instead of launching B and C in opposite directions we'll launch them simultaneously from points D and E which are in line, at relative rest to each other and to A and seperated from A with A being at the mid point.

Now when B and C collide at A, if they have no relative velocity please compute for me the kenetic energy disapated in the crash. :D

B and C have relative velocity but you cannot determine relavistic affect without knowing their respective velocities to their common rest frame.

(wah wah wah wah)... common rest frame. Define a common rest frame. Assume I am a 'tard and don't know anything.

Define a common rest frame. Assume I am a 'tard and don't know anything.

Not meaning to be deragatory but you are acting like a tard. :D

I'll note for others you just misrepresented my posts by typing your own and making it appear as a MacM quote. I never wrote that.

Does anybody else out there not understand what it means to say a "Common Rest Frame"?

Is english your native language?

Not meaning to be deragatory but you are acting like a tard. :D I made the comment knowing full well you'd make an appropriate reply comment. But all kidding aside, I really do want you to define completely and without any room for interpretation as to what exactly you define as a "common rest frame". What is significant about this "common rest frame"? Do two objects in relative motion only have one "common rest frame"? If not, why don't you refer to it as "common rest frames"? I'm awaiting answers.

Define a common rest frame.
"Common Rest Frame" is a term that MacM uses to mean "The frame in which the average velocity of these objects is zero" (at least, that's what I think he means. One can never be sure).

He appears to think that Special Relativity relies on this concept in some way.

"Common Rest Frame" is a term that MacM uses to mean "The frame in which the average velocity of these objects is zero" (at least, that's what I think he means. One can never be sure). I don't think MacM would agree to this - which isn't saying much because he never agrees with anyone as far as I can tell :D. Anway, I think MacM would raise the same problem if you launched A at .3c and B at .6c such that they had a relative velocity greater than .8c.

You may be right...
Perhaps he means "The frame in which the objects were last at rest with respect to each other"???

In another thread, I wrote this:

Time dilation is a function of absolute relative velocity from the point of the common rest frame.

Suppose I launch spaceship A at 0.866c away from Earth. Ship A carries spaceship B inside it. Ship A travels for a while at this constant speed, and then, while still going at constant speed, launches spaceship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A (and still away from Earth), where the 0.866c is measured relative to A.

Questions:

1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth?
2. If it is possible, what would the speed of B be, relative to Earth?
3. What would B's final gamma factor be, relative to Earth?
4. What would be the final relative rates of the clocks on Earth, A and B, after B was launched?
5. Is the "common rest frame" of A and B the frame of A, or the frame of Earth?

MacM hasn't answered, so far.

Perhaps he means "The frame in which the objects were last at rest with respect to each other"???

That's what I think he probably means, but we'll wait and see...

You may be right...
Perhaps he means "The frame in which the objects were last at rest with respect to each other"???

You've got it Pete.

You've got it Pete.
Edit: I replied thinking you meant what Pete first said.

Anyway, with this new definition, we must assume that the frames undergo acceleration. This isn't good. What if two frames (objects) were never at relativity rest? What is their "common rest frame"?

So, MacM, could you please answer my 5 questions, above?

In another thread, I wrote this:

Suppose I launch spaceship A at 0.866c away from Earth. Ship A carries spaceship B inside it. Ship A travels for a while at this constant speed, and then, while still going at constant speed, launches spaceship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A (and still away from Earth), where the 0.866c is measured relative to A.

Questions:

1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth?
2. If it is possible, what would the speed of B be, relative to Earth?
3. What would B's final gamma factor be, relative to Earth?
4. What would be the final relative rates of the clocks on Earth, A and B, after B was launched?
5. Is the "common rest frame" of A and B the frame of A, or the frame of Earth?

MacM hasn't answered, so far.

I sure as hell did. If it isn't there somebody deleted it because I did respond. But in any case.

1 - Certainly

2 - 0.9897391706c

3 - 6.998592267

4 - Earth = 1,000 ticks; B = 142.8857431 ticks

5 - Since you know A,B and Earth were all at common rest it is a primary referance including earth, however A is also a common rest point for calculation between A and B.

Edit: I replied thinking you meant what Pete first said.

Anyway, with this new definition, we must assume that the frames undergo acceleration. This isn't good. What if two frames (objects) were never at relativity rest? What is their "common rest frame"?

Find one. Case that is. That is just as impractical as asking you what is the time dilation between B and C if you don't know the common rest point.

They have one but you weren't there when they were launched, I was. Hence I know if their seperation at 0.866c , apparent relative velocity, has time dilation or not, you don't.

Find one. Case that is. That is just as impractical as asking you what is the time dilation between B and C if you don't know the common rest point.

They have one but you weren't there when they were launched, I was. Hence I know if their seperation at 0.866c , apparent relative velocity, has time dilation or not, you don't.

A was born in a spaceship traveling at .5c relative to Earth. B was born in a spaceship traveling at .5c relative to Earth in the opposite direction. Neither A nor B have ever been at relative rest. Who is older? Also, only A cares about who is older, so analyze this from his/her perspective.

Edit: I forgot to add the time of birth. Clocks were started at 0 upon launch from Earth. Each were born when the clocks read 1 yr in their own frames.

MacM:

Regarding question 4, you didn't provide a number of ticks for A. If Earth has 1000 ticks and B has 143 ticks, how many ticks does A have?

A was born in a spaceship traveling at .5c relative to Earth. B was born in a spaceship traveling at .5c relative to Earth in the opposite direction. Neither A nor B have ever been at relative rest. Who is older? Also, only A cares about who is older, so analyze this from his/her perspective.

Nobody knows including you since you don't know if the earth has motion or not.

MacM:

Regarding question 4, you didn't provide a number of ticks for A. If Earth has 1000 ticks and B has 143 ticks, how many ticks does A have?

Sorry. 500.

Nobody knows including you since you don't know if the earth has motion or not. I guess A will have to die unhappy not knowing then.

MacM, I guess you do not want to take the postition that A and B take on the frames of their parent frames (i.e. ship reference frames). Perhaps you foresaw where this was going - most notably, we could take everything back to the big bang and establish that time dilation doesn't exist :D - which is of course nonsense (for anyone thinking I believe that).

MacM, I guess you do not want to take the postition that A and B take on the frames of their parent frames (i.e. ship reference frames). Perhaps you foresaw where this was going - most notably, we could take everything back to the big bang and establish that time dilation doesn't exist :D - which is of course nonsense (for anyone thinking I believe that).

I was just stating my view. I would be so presumptious as to assume what you think. :D

Hmm... interesting.

Just for the record, here is my scenario:

Suppose I launch spaceship A at 0.866c away from Earth. Ship A carries spaceship B inside it. Ship A travels for a while at this constant speed, and then, while still going at constant speed, launches spaceship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A (and still away from Earth), where the 0.866c is measured relative to A.

I asked MacM, and he answered:

1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth?

"Certainly"

2. If it is possible, what would the speed of B be, relative to Earth?

"0.9897391706c"

Note: this is the value obtained using SRT's velocity addition formula, which MacM apparently agrees with

3. What would B's final gamma factor be, relative to Earth?

"6.998592267"

This is the gamma factor corresponding to the velocity in (2).

4. What would be the final relative rates of the clocks on Earth, A and B, after B was launched?

"Earth = 1,000 ticks; A= 500 ticks, B = 142.8857431 ticks"

5. Is the "common rest frame" of A and B the frame of A, or the frame of Earth?

"Since you know A,B and Earth were all at common rest it is a primary referance including earth, however A is also a common rest point for calculation between A and B."

We can now clearly see why MacM's relativity doesn't work.

Note that in point (5), MacM states that A is a "common rest point" for the calculation between A and B. As stated in the original problem, B is moving at 0.866c relative to A. Thus, according to MacM physics, B has a gamma factor of 2 in MacM's "common rest frame" of A and B. Therefore, B's clock should tick at half the rate of A's clock.

If A ticks off 500 ticks, then according to this "common rest frame" in MacM's physics, B should tick off 250 ticks.

But wait! MacM says B only ticks off 142.8 ticks!

Something is wrong here. Folks, roll up and watch as MacM backpeddles and dodges and does the fancy Texas Two Step he is famous for, to try to wriggle out of a problem he himself has created.

Let's see it again, from MacM's own mouth:

Since you know A,B and Earth were all at common rest it is a primary referance including earth, however A is also a common rest point for calculation between A and B.

According to MacM's own "common rest point" theory, B should tick half as slowly as A, which, in turn should tick half as slowly as Earth clocks, since the Earth frame is a "common rest point" of A and the Earth. So, B should tick at 1/4 the rate of Earth clocks. But, MacM states that B's gamma factor, relative to Earth is more like 7 than 4. He says B ticks at only 1/7 the rate of Earth clocks, not 1/4.

Folks, watch as MacM now tells us that actually A is NOT a "common rest point" after all, and that the only "common rest point" in this problem is the Earth.

But, if that's the case, how does MacM know that we don't need to trace back further than the Earth to find the real "common rest point", in exactly the same way that we had to trace back from A to the Earth to find the real "common rest point" of A and B?

In fact, if MacM takes this line, he can never make any accurate calculation, since he can never establish that ANYTHING is the real "common rest point" he requires for his wacky version of relativity.

Let's see you wiggle, MacM. Get those dancing shoes out! (Or will you conveniently forget this discussion ever happened?)

The the end scene of the show would start shortly. What would be the climax? or anti-climax? You all will know shortly... just wait...

Hmm... interesting.

Just for the record, here is my scenario:

“ Suppose I launch spaceship A at 0.866c away from Earth. Ship A carries spaceship B inside it. Ship A travels for a while at this constant speed, and then, while still going at constant speed, launches spaceship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A (and still away from Earth), where the 0.866c is measured relative to A. ”

I asked MacM, and he answered:

“ 1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth?

"Certainly"

2. If it is possible, what would the speed of B be, relative to Earth?

"0.9897391706c"

Note: this is the value obtained using SRT's velocity addition formula, which MacM apparently agrees with

No I don't but that is another issue. Your scenario was posted in an attempt to test my ability to compute according to SRT.

3. What would B's final gamma factor be, relative to Earth?

"6.998592267"

This is the gamma factor corresponding to the velocity in (2).

4. What would be the final relative rates of the clocks on Earth, A and B, after B was launched?

"Earth = 1,000 ticks; A= 500 ticks, B = 142.8857431 ticks"

5. Is the "common rest frame" of A and B the frame of A, or the frame of Earth?

"Since you know A,B and Earth were all at common rest it is a primary referance including earth, however A is also a common rest point for calculation between A and B." ”

We can now clearly see why MacM's relativity doesn't work.

It isn't my relativity it is Einstein's and apparently yours.

Note that in point (5), MacM states that A is a "common rest point" for the calculation between A and B. As stated in the original problem, B is moving at 0.866c relative to A. Thus, according to MacM physics, B has a gamma factor of 2 in MacM's "common rest frame" of A and B. Therefore, B's clock should tick at half the rate of A's clock.

And that is absolutely correct according to SRT. I could give you the same scenario excluding earth and simply claim a spaceship with unknown motion launches A at 0.866c and you would claim it's clock is dilated by a factor of 2.000. You launched A from B at 0.866c relative to A. The case is the same.

If A ticks off 500 ticks, then according to this "common rest frame" in MacM's physics, B should tick off 250 ticks.

That is correct.

But wait! MacM says B only ticks off 142.8 ticks!

Something is wrong here. Folks, roll up and watch as MacM backpeddles and dodges and does the fancy Texas Two Step he is famous for, to try to wriggle out of a problem he himself has created.

Thank you for pointing out that the Velocity Addition Formula is horseshit. 142.8 ticks is according to SRT between earth and B using the VAF. Since we have considerable data showing the 0.866c relationship does produce a dilation by a factor of 2.000 then you have just proven, what I already knew, and that is SRT's VAF is false.

You seem to think you can claim just because A and B were launched from earth that A and B no longer have a physical relationship which can be calculated.

Hmmmm Interesting.

According to MacM's own "common rest point" theory, B should tick half as slowly as A, which, in turn should tick half as slowly as Earth clocks, since the Earth frame is a "common rest point" of A and the Earth. So, B should tick at 1/4 the rate of Earth clocks. But, MacM states that B's gamma factor, relative to Earth is more like 7 than 4. He says B ticks at only 1/7 the rate of Earth clocks, not 1/4.

Sorry James R. This is your problem and I am going to enjoy watching you wiggle on this one. It is the consequence of SRT's VAF that B now has two tick rates. It has nothing to do with MY view. It is the results of the SRT view. I'm enjoying this.

I want to see you claim that in your scenario A and B have no direct calculable physics. Then I will point out that you are really screwed up since the earth has motion and our solar system has motion and our galaxy has motion. So nothing can be calculated according to you.

Folks, watch as MacM now tells us that actually A is NOT a "common rest point" after all, and that the only "common rest point" in this problem is the Earth.

Not at all. This is an SRT problem, not my problem. I'm waiting for you to make that claim. SEE ABOVE. :D

But, if that's the case, how does MacM know that we don't need to trace back further than the Earth to find the real "common rest point", in exactly the same way that we had to trace back from A to the Earth to find the real "common rest point" of A and B?

I guess you get my point.

In fact, if MacM takes this line, he can never make any accurate calculation, since he can never establish that ANYTHING is the real "common rest point" he requires for his wacky version of relativity.

Ha. I'm setting on the sideline watching you dance. You just opened a can of worms for your pet theory. My view works. Yours doesn't.

Let's see you wiggle, MacM. Get those dancing shoes out! (Or will you conveniently forget this discussion ever happened?)

I can't believe you dug your own hole and don't even realize it. My calculations were correct and according to SRT. Don't think you can alter what I advocate and then claim the shitty results are mine. They are SRT's shitty results.

Come on. I dare you to claim that the data I calculated between A and B is in error according to SRT. I dare you to claim that the data I calculated between B and earth and A and earth is not according to SRT.

If you don't then I challenge YOU to explain the descrepancy between B's tick rates they are a product of SRT.

:p

The the end scene of the show would start shortly. What would be the climax? or anti-climax? You all will know shortly... just wait...

What is so appealing to you to be on the losing end?

MacM:

I didn't ask about SRT. I wanted to know what YOU think. After all, it's YOUR "common rest point" theory. SRT has no such concept. If you think the problems above are part of SRT, then you simply don't know anything about SRT.

Your problem is that you don't even know what YOU believe, yourself. Every time you are shown to be wrong, you simply dance around and claim it wasn't really your idea after all. Then, you move on to some new, equally wrong idea, and forget that you ever advocated your previous error.

Thank you for pointing out that the Velocity Addition Formula is horseshit.

If you thought it was horseshit before, why did you use it when you were asked what YOU believed?

Ok, let's assume you now disagree with it. Then I ask again:

If A is launched at 0.866c relative to Earth, and A then launches B at 0.866c relative to A, what is B's velocity relative to Earth?

Note: I am not asking what SRT says. I am asking what YOU believe (but you already knew that, didn't you?).

Previously, you gave the answer SRT would have given, but now I'm sure you'll flip flop in your standard way. So, what's the answer?

You seem to think you can claim just because A and B were launched from earth that A and B no longer have a physical relationship which can be calculated.

Hmmmm Interesting.

That's YOUR claim, not mine. Remember?

According to MacM's own "common rest point" theory, B should tick half as slowly as A, which, in turn should tick half as slowly as Earth clocks, since the Earth frame is a "common rest point" of A and the Earth. So, B should tick at 1/4 the rate of Earth clocks. But, MacM states that B's gamma factor, relative to Earth is more like 7 than 4. He says B ticks at only 1/7 the rate of Earth clocks, not 1/4.

Sorry James R. This is your problem and I am going to enjoy watching you wiggle on this one. It is the consequence of SRT's VAF that B now has two tick rates.

B having two tick rates in two different frames is NOT a problem for SRT. It is only a problem for YOU, who is advocating an absolute system of tick rates based on a "common rest point". Understand? (I'm sure you don't.)

I want to see you claim that in your scenario A and B have no direct calculable physics.

As I've shown, it is only a consequence of YOUR view (not SRT) that A and B have no calculable physics. Wriggle wriggle, MacM. Try to squrim out, if you can.

But, if that's the case, how does MacM know that we don't need to trace back further than the Earth to find the real "common rest point", in exactly the same way that we had to trace back from A to the Earth to find the real "common rest point" of A and B?

I guess you get my point.

I don't think you get YOUR OWN point.

Ha. I'm setting on the sideline watching you dance. You just opened a can of worms for your pet theory. My view works. Yours doesn't.

How does your view work? Explain. Analyse the given scenario and tell me what you REALLY believe the tick rates are. Oh, hang on, you already did that, didn't you? And you were inconsistent, and couldn't decide what you actually believed, as I showed. You have zero credibility left.

If you don't then I challenge YOU to explain the descrepancy between B's tick rates they are a product of SRT.

According to SRT, B ticks at different rates, as seen by A or Earth. That is no problem for SRT, since two different reference frames are involved. But it is a HUGE problem for you, since you advocate a single preferred reference frame in which there is only ever ONE tick rate. But you can't say how to find that reference frame, and I have convincingly shown that your concept of "common rest point" doesn't work as you wish it to.

What you are doing now, due to a lack of imagination, is borrowing one or two parts of SRT and pretending they will work without the rest of the theory. You then proclaim that this muddled and bastardised version of SRT is the real MacM wacky physics. When you are shown to be wrong and inconsistent, you backpeddle and claim that you were just using SRT, but you weren't, were you? You were just using the latest version of your knee-jerk panicky MacM wacky physics.

MacM:

I didn't ask about SRT. I wanted to know what YOU think. After all, it's YOUR "common rest point" theory. SRT has no such concept. If you think the problems above are part of SRT, then you simply don't know anything about SRT.

unsupported rhetoric. Nothing you have said here has addressed the fact that B has two tick rates.

Or do you deny A and B have a relative velocity of 0.866c per A andB?

Do you deny that A and earth have a relative velocity of 0.866c?

Do you deny that SRT velocity addition claims that B has velocity of 0.9897?

Do you deny any of my calculation? If so on what bases?.

Your problem is that you don't even know what YOU believe, yourself.

Your statement is unsupported fiat and false and does not address the issue. Wonder why. If you can't answer the question then attack the messenger, that is why.

Every time you are shown to be wrong, you simply dance around and claim it wasn't really your idea after all. Then, you move on to some new, equally wrong idea, and forget that you ever advocated your previous error.

Funny, I haven't seen you post any errors. You are posting your typical BS.

If you thought it was horseshit before, why did you use it when you were asked what YOU believed?

I was not asked what I believe. You asked what SRT would jpredict in your scenario. I have posted what I believe and it still stands until you make some explanations for the results.

Ok, let's assume you now disagree with it. Then I ask again:

If A is launched at 0.866c relative to Earth, and A then launches B at 0.866c relative to A, what is B's velocity relative to Earth?

B no longer exists in earth's dimension.

Note: I am not asking what SRT says. I am asking what YOU believe (but you already knew that, didn't you?).

No but I have answered above since you asked. No before you go trapsing off on that issue suppose you explain the fact that SRT results in two different tick rtes for the same clock at the same time.

Previously, you gave the answer SRT would have given, but now I'm sure you'll flip flop in your standard way. So, what's the answer?

Gave it above and you have just claimed that B does have two tick rates per SRT. Funny earlier you implied that it didn't and that it was just a matter of Mac's physics.

That's YOUR claim, not mine. Remember?

B having two tick rates in two different frames is NOT a problem for SRT.

Perhaps not but that result is a problem for any physical reality. Or are you changing your mind again and now say it is not a physical fact of the clock but is merely an illusion of motion?

It is only a problem for YOU, who is advocating an absolute system of tick rates based on a "common rest point". Understand? (I'm sure you don't.)

Funny, I know you don't. You haven't answered the physics question and merely want to cite the theory.

As I've shown, it is only a consequence of YOUR view (not SRT) that A and B have no calculable physics. Wriggle wriggle, MacM. Try to squrim out, if you can.

Funny, I seem to recall that it was I that pointed out you were implying that the only rest frame is some unknown point in deep space which takes all motion into account.

I don't think you get YOUR OWN point.

I know you don't and that is why you are not addressing the physics issue but are trying to distract by attacking me on fabricated grounds.

How does your view work? Explain. Analyse the given scenario and tell me what you REALLY believe the tick rates are. Oh, hang on, you already did that, didn't you? And you were inconsistent, and couldn't decide what you actually believed, as I showed. You have zero credibility left.

You have only shown you have no viable answer to the question.

According to SRT, B ticks at different rates, as seen by A or Earth. That is no problem for SRT, since two different reference frames are involved.

Referance frames only account for perception and not the accumulated time by the clock. You have no evidence that shows the third common rest frame to be false. I do have evidence that reciprocity has never been observed nor recorded by data in 100 years of relativity.

But it is a HUGE problem for you, since you advocate a single preferred reference frame in which there is only ever ONE tick rate.[quote]

Funny how that is in agreement with physical evidence. If not then show us at least one test where a clock displayed two (or morre) accumulated times or where each clock accumulated less time than the other.

[quote]But you can't say how to find that reference frame,

In physical test it is known. In gendankins it can be included. It exists in all tests to date, it just happens to be at rest to oneof the two clocks in question; which eliminates the SRT that there is reciprocity.

and I have convincingly shown that your concept of "common rest point" doesn't work as you wish it to.

You have convinced yourself apparantly. But you have not address the physical accumulated time question, nor the reciproticy question.

What you are doing now, due to a lack of imagination, is borrowing one or two parts of SRT and pretending they will work without the rest of the theory. You then proclaim that this muddled and bastardised version of SRT is the real MacM wacky physics. When you are shown to be wrong and inconsistent, you backpeddle and claim that you were just using SRT, but you weren't, were you? You were just using the latest version of your knee-jerk panicky MacM wacky physics.

Nothing has changed in my view. You simply think you can make shit up and people will believe it is true.

Now address the damn issue.

MacM:

Nice dancing, but I can see through you. I predicted you'd do this, remember?

Or do you deny A and B have a relative velocity of 0.866c per A andB?

I specified it in my original statement of the problem, remember? And my first question to you was:

1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth?

Do you think I don't know what the SRT answer to this is? Then why do you suppose I asked? Answer: because I was asking what YOU, who keeps saying he disagrees with relativity, thinks is the actual answer. And what do I get from you? I get a bastardised version of SRT.

The fact is, if you actually had a coherent theory, you'd stop your Texas Two step and post your analysis of the problem. But you don't, so you can't.

Every time you are shown to be wrong, you simply dance around and claim it wasn't really your idea after all. Then, you move on to some new, equally wrong idea, and forget that you ever advocated your previous error.

Funny, I haven't seen you post any errors. You are posting your typical BS.

I've completely and neatly demolished your "common rest point" theory? Are you too dumb to see that?

I was not asked what I believe. You asked what SRT would jpredict in your scenario.

No you weren't. Go back and read what I wrote again. Did I mention SRT? Not once. And you know it. Let's do the MacM foxtrot.

If A is launched at 0.866c relative to Earth, and A then launches B at 0.866c relative to A, what is B's velocity relative to Earth?

B no longer exists in earth's dimension.

Wow. Deep. What an amazingly clear and complete answer. You are indeed a guru of physics.

What is the explanatory power of your answer? Nil. Nada. Zip.

MacM says that when things go fast enough, they cease to exist in "earth's dimension". Points for using the big word "dimension", MacM. You might confuse some newbies with that. But the real physicists will just laugh at you.

Want to try double or nothing?

B having two tick rates in two different frames is NOT a problem for SRT.

Perhaps not but that result is a problem for any physical reality.

Well, SRT and your latest wacky theory are both equally faulty, then, aren't they? Because I've shown that YOUR theory predicts two rates for B.

Your theory dies as a result of your own objections. Neat, isn't it?

Funny, I seem to recall that it was I that pointed out you were implying that the only rest frame is some unknown point in deep space which takes all motion into account.

Let me explain it to you like I would explain to a child. SRT has no preferred frames, MacM. A point in deep space is just as good as a point on Earth, which is just as good as a point on spaceship A. It is only YOU who claims special status for one point above all others.

How does your view work? Explain.

You have only shown you have no viable answer to the question.

Oh, excellent deflection again, MacM. Maybe you'll get away with it with some of those newbies watching. Who knows?

Can't answer the question, can you? Because YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE. It's a simple enough question. I asked you "How does your view work?" Don't you know? Poor, confused MacM.

Referance frames only account for perception and not the accumulated time by the clock.

Whatever. When I see a statement of your beliefs, then we might be able to discuss these kinds of statements. But it's just not fair to you while you're in such a muddle.

But you can't say how to find that [special] reference frame

In physical test it is known. In gendankins it can be included. It exists in all tests to date, it just happens to be at rest to oneof the two clocks in question; which eliminates the SRT that there is reciprocity.

Wonderful attempt at deflection again, but again, only for the newbies.

My statement stands: you can't say how to find your "special" frame in any situation.

I get sick of being right all the time.

Nothing has changed in my view. You simply think you can make shit up and people will believe it is true.

A quote from the Master himself.

Well, your shit is exposed for all to see, MacM.

Your credibility has just dropped below freezing point.

MacM:

Nice dancing, but I can see through you. I predicted you'd do this, remember?


“ Or do you deny A and B have a relative velocity of 0.866c per A andB? ”



I specified it in my original statement of the problem, remember? And my first question to you was:


“ Originally Posted by James R
1. Is it even possible to launch ship B at a speed of 0.866c away from A? Would that mean that B would be going at 0.866c + 0.866c relative to Earth? ”

To which I replied "Yes" the correct answer. BTW you see shit. You talk shit.

Do you think I don't know what the SRT answer to this is? Then why do you suppose I asked? Answer: because I was asking what YOU, who keeps saying he disagrees with relativity, thinks is the actual answer. And what do I get from you? I get a bastardised version of SRT.

Interesting. Just what do you claim is bastardized. All my math was correct and you ahave already admitted to the multiple tick rate calculation results.

You ill thought out effot to discredit me has blown up in your face. YOur claim I don't understand, and confused and ignorant hasn't held water.

Your defense? To back off and say well multiple tick rates aren't a problem because of being in different frames and because of simultaneity. A totally lame response. Your response disregards the fact that in the end the clock only ticks in it's frame not in the viewing frame of others. That is the fact not your BS.

The fact is, if you actually had a coherent theory, you'd stop your Texas Two step and post your analysis of the problem. But you don't, so you can't.

The fact is if you had a viable response to the issues I have raised you would post them but you don't and can't. Or have you come across a case of reciprocity and will post it for us.?


“ Originally Posted by James R
Every time you are shown to be wrong, you simply dance around and claim it wasn't really your idea after all. Then, you move on to some new, equally wrong idea, and forget that you ever advocated your previous error. ”

Bullshit. Every time you find yourself in a corner you start these bBS attacks because you have no viable answer.

I've completely and neatly demolished your "common rest point" theory? Are you too dumb to see that?

Selfserving bullshit. Dream on.

No you weren't. Go back and read what I wrote again. Did I mention SRT? Not once. And you know it. Let's do the MacM foxtrot.

Better yet lets knock off the horshit and stick with physics and see you act like a man for a change.

Wow. Deep. What an amazingly clear and complete answer. You are indeed a guru of physics.

Better than swallowing horsit that does not work in the real world.

What is the explanatory power of your answer? Nil. Nada. Zip.

More than your answers. YOur attack BS is just that BS, a substitute for failure on your part.

MacM says that when things go fast enough, they cease to exist in "earth's dimension". Points for using the big word "dimension", MacM. You might confuse some newbies with that. But the real physicists will just laugh at you.[/qluote]

Laugh out the other side idiot. It is far more realistic than the BS you peddle.

[quote]Want to try double or nothing?

Game whenever you are but we will stick to physics not your BS.



Well, SRT and your latest wacky theory are both equally faulty, then, aren't they? Because I've shown that YOUR theory predicts two rates for B.

WHAT A JOKE. IT WAS SRT THAT DOES THAT AND YOU HAVE ADMITTED IT. And yes it is faulty.

Your theory dies as a result of your own objections. Neat, isn't it?

Meaningless, pointless talk. You really think you can take SRT results, claim them as being mine and because it shows stupidity claim my view in error. I reject this horseshit remember.?

Let me explain it to you like I would explain to a child. SRT has no preferred frames, MacM. A point in deep space is just as good as a point on Earth, which is just as good as a point on spaceship A. It is only YOU who claims special status for one point above all others.

Only if you are deaf, dumb and blind, Oh, not to mention ignorant.

I choose to not play your stlupid insult game and terminate the bvalance of your selfserving bullshit post.

It is outright fraud.

Bullshit. (...) Selfserving bullshit. Dream on. (...) Better yet lets knock off the horshit (...) Better than swallowing horsit that does not work in the real world. (...) Laugh out the other side idiot. It is far more realistic than the BS you peddle. (...) You really think you can take SRT results, claim them as being mine and because it shows stupidity claim my view in error. I reject this horseshit remember.? (...) Only if you are deaf, dumb and blind, Oh, not to mention ignorant.

(...)

I choose to not play your stlupid insult game and terminate the bvalance of your selfserving bullshit post.

Beautiful post MacM :eek:

MacM:

A completely contentless post from you that time.

You have no answers, so you try lamely to resort to deflection.

Well, now you're exposed for all to see.

Beautiful post MacM :eek:

I thought so and it was certainly justified.

What is so appealing to you to be on the losing end?

It depends on who is on the losing end. You lost when you correctly applied
VAF for B & Earth.

It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame. Gamma factor depends on this seperate relative velocities, hence the the TIME DILATION also applies for individual pairs of frames. No common frame of reference with respect to relative velocities, time dilation.

Here afterwards you have no reason to talk about common frame when applying SRT to frames that have relative velocities among themselves. 3 clocks goes off with this.

James R, good show.

It depends on who is on the losing end. You lost when you correctly applied
VAF for B & Earth.

It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame. Gamma factor depends on this seperate relative velocities, hence the the TIME DILATION also applies for individual pairs of frames. No common frame of reference with respect to relative velocities, time dilation.

Here afterwards you have no reason to talk about common frame when applying SRT to frames that have relative velocities among themselves. 3 clocks goes off with this.

James R, good show.

So, it is fine to use a 'common' frame in General Theory, but not Special Theory? Is this why Special Theory is not applicable in the Global Positioning System, because of all the orbital planes and motions in the satellite constellation?

Edit: I just thought of something else. Hafele & Keating really screwed up, didn't they? They sent cesium clocks around the Earth in OPPOSITE directions, then tried to compare them with a clock at the U S Naval Observatory on the surface of the Earth. Since the clocks on the jet aircraft were traveling at essentially the same velocities relative to the surface clock, the time dilation should have been nearly the same on each of the traveling clocks relative to the third clock (reference frame) on the ground. The clocks that traveled East LOST 59 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock and the clocks that traveled West GAINED 275 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock. I wonder what kind of preferred reference frame this was in? I guess they disproved Special Theory with their preferred frame, didn't they? Or does Special Relativity not apply to this experiment?

Edit: I just thought of something else. Hafele & Keating really screwed up, didn't they? They sent cesium clocks around the Earth in OPPOSITE directions, then tried to compare them with a clock at the U S Naval Observatory on the surface of the Earth. Since the clocks on the jet aircraft were traveling at essentially the same velocities relative to the surface clock, the time dilation should have been nearly the same on each of the traveling clocks relative to the third clock (reference frame) on the ground. The clocks that traveled East LOST 59 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock and the clocks that traveled West GAINED 275 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock. I wonder what kind of preferred reference frame this was in? I guess they disproved Special Theory with their preferred frame, didn't they? Or does Special Relativity not apply to this experiment?
2inq, how about looking up the actual Science paper? Or alternatively doing a bit of Googling? I, for instance, found this link (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html) pretty quick, which answers your objections.

each moving clock is compared to earth clock seperately & directlly not involving a 'common' 3rd frame, right?

This what i said : It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame

BTW, the time dilation in Hafele & Keating experiment is net of gravitational and kinematic effect and the observed time dilations were close to what was predicted.

time dilations due to gravitional effect are almost equal gain in time for both moving clocks.

kinematic effect has different signs (loss and gain) for east & westward clocks respectively in the derivation (they used angular velocity for surface clock with explanation) given here :

- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

Edit : just noticed funkstar has already given the link few minutes before this post.

B no longer exists in earth's dimension.

:eek:

I'm almost afraid to ask...

What does this mean?

It depends on who is on the losing end. You lost when you correctly applied
VAF for B & Earth.

It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame. Gamma factor depends on this seperate relative velocities, hence the the TIME DILATION also applies for individual pairs of frames. No common frame of reference with respect to relative velocities, time dilation.

Here afterwards you have no reason to talk about common frame when applying SRT to frames that have relative velocities among themselves. 3 clocks goes off with this.

James R, good show.

my response:

Originally Posted by 2inquisitive
Edit: I just thought of something else. Hafele & Keating really screwed up, didn't they? They sent cesium clocks around the Earth in OPPOSITE directions, then tried to compare them with a clock at the U S Naval Observatory on the surface of the Earth. Since the clocks on the jet aircraft were traveling at essentially the same velocities relative to the surface clock, the time dilation should have been nearly the same on each of the traveling clocks relative to the third clock (reference frame) on the ground. The clocks that traveled East LOST 59 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock and the clocks that traveled West GAINED 275 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock. I wonder what kind of preferred reference frame this was in? I guess they disproved Special Theory with their preferred frame, didn't they? Or does Special Relativity not apply to this experiment?"
================================================== ======

by funkstar:

"2inq, how about looking up the actual Science paper? Or alternatively doing a bit of Googling? I, for instance, found this link pretty quick, which answers your objections."
================================================== =======

I already knew the experiment unlike you funkstar. I only went to the site you have linked to get the actual dilations. evernoe had objections to using more than two reference frames, not me. You are in a continual state of confusion, aren't you funkstar? Or is it that you just LIE?

:eek:

I'm almost afraid to ask...

What does this [Earth's dimension] mean?You mean you don't know? Tsk,tsk. It's the dimension of the Earth, er, no it's the dimension Earth inhabits, er, no it's the the dimension of, er, something or other. Surely it's obvious.

MacM:

A completely contentless post from you that time.

You have no answers, so you try lamely to resort to deflection.

Well, now you're exposed for all to see.

Unfortunately for you James R, this is an untrue statement. It has been you that have relied upon attacks and have failed to supply any physics support for your theory.

Your only defense is to now say "It is OK that SRT results in multiple tick rates for clocks since they exist in different frames and are offset by simultaneity.

Frankly that is a poor excuse for a response. To accept that as a physical reality is to accept the Many Worlds View. It is ludricrus. The reality is that the clocks tick rate is afixed to it's local rest frame and the vgiew of that rate by others in motion does not alter that tick rate. It is the view "Perception" that is distorted for the moving observer. That is all.

It depends on who is on the losing end. You lost when you correctly applied
VAF for B & Earth.

That is really funny. So you accept a Many Worlds View as well. Oh well.

It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame. Gamma factor depends on this seperate relative velocities, hence the the TIME DILATION also applies for individual pairs of frames. No common frame of reference with respect to relative velocities, time dilation.

Whicxh re\sults in reciproicty of time dilation - WHICH DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXIST. A prudent person would drop such a theory particularily in favor of the evidence now available from GPS.

Here afterwards you have no reason to talk about common frame when applying SRT to frames that have relative velocities among themselves. 3 clocks goes off with this.

James R, good show.

Yes indeed good show. You have now admitted the muliple tick rate problem. Even though you want to calim that isn't a problem, it is for any reasonable person not blinded by BS.

MacM:

The reality is that the clocks tick rate is afixed to it's local rest frame and the vgiew of that rate by others in motion does not alter that tick rate. It is the view "Perception" that is distorted for the moving observer. That is all.

It is a pity you have no physics to back up your philosophical position.

MacM:

It is a pity you have no physics to back up your philosophical position.

It is even a bigger pity that you (the professional) find you are incapable of posting a physics response and continue to rely on unsupported attacks.

My claim is supported, MacM. You have posted no physics, no maths, no nothing. You just have beliefs, based on your imagination, and nothing else. That's fine, but don't pretend it's science.

In fact, the relative velocity predicted by SR between B and C is 2v/(1+v2/c2)

You mean that in this case:

<PRE>
-v v
B <---------- A ---------> C
</PRE>

relative velocity between B and C is 2v/(1+v^2/c^2) ?

It is not! It is zero!

w = (u + v) / (1 + uv/c^2)

but u = -v, and we have Zero / Something which is 0!

if v = c we have however Zero/Zero which is hard to say what limit has, but I think that using Lopital law it is again zero.

B and C are in one and the same FR. Time dilation and lenght contraction is not concerned by the direction.

I thought that nothing can move faster then c, no matter what frame your in.

"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is the same to all inertial observers, is the same in all directions..."



Here we are talking about two different velocities - abolute and relative. Absolute velocity of a object wrt vacuum is always equal or smaller to c. However what will be the velocity of two space-ships wrt each-other starting from Earth in opposite directions with velocities bigget then 0.5 c?

When compares FRs SRT takes only the difference by the two absolute velocities which of course always will be smaller then c. In fact in the above case it is zero. Does it means that both spaceships are not moving one wrt other at all?

Objects can have velocity bigger then c one wrt other. Object's can't move wrt Absolute Space with velocity bigger then c.

Whicxh re\sults in reciproicty of time dilation - WHICH DOES NOT AND CANNOT EXIST.

If 2 frames are in different world lines then one validly observes the other's time is dilated till their world lines merge again.

A nice animation explaining the mutual time dilation is for you (it switchs between space-time coordinate views of 2 different world lines) :

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Alfred-Brian-anim.gif

from

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Alfred-Brian-anim.html

if possible go thro' the relativity tutorial in that site.

You mean that in this case:

<PRE>
-v v
B <---------- A ---------> C
</PRE>

relative velocity between B and C is 2v/(1+v^2/c^2) ?

It is not! It is zero!

w = (u + v) / (1 + uv/c^2)

but u = -v, and we have Zero / Something which is 0!

if v = c we have however Zero/Zero which is hard to say what limit has, but I think that using Lopital law it is again zero.

B and C are in one and the same FR. Time dilation and lenght contraction is not concerned by the direction.

A small correction. If they are moving in the same direction it is

|u-v|/(1-uv/c^2);

if they are moving in opposite direction it is

|u-(-v)|/(1-(-uv)/c^2) = |u+v|/(1+uv/c^2)

My claim is supported, MacM. You have posted no physics, no maths, no nothing. You just have beliefs, based on your imagination, and nothing else. That's fine, but don't pretend it's science.

You are a joke James R. Anybody reading this thread will see I have posted correct mathematics using SRT. Based on the results, which you have agreed are correct, you have only two choices:

1 - Admit that SRT is based on perceptions or illusions of motion, not physical realities, or

2 - That you advocate a Many Worlds View where there exists multiple realities.

Which is it?

The later of course belongs in the pseudoscience group.

Based on the results, which you have agreed are correct...

On the contrary, I explained exactly where you went wrong. Your memory is fading.

On the contrary, I explained exactly where you went wrong. Your memory is fading.

Baloney. Re-read the thread. You have said nothing physical but only cite rhetoric. You have not answered my above question.

Do you admit SRT is perception or do you believe in Many Worlds?

He said she said. Whatever. Come back if you ever have a concrete argument.

by funkstar:

"2inq, how about looking up the actual Science paper? Or alternatively doing a bit of Googling? I, for instance, found this link pretty quick, which answers your objections."
================================================== =======

I already knew the experiment unlike you funkstar. I only went to the site you have linked to get the actual dilations. evernoe had objections to using more than two reference frames, not me. You are in a continual state of confusion, aren't you funkstar? Or is it that you just LIE?
No. You were being snide, and that's embarrassing when you're also wrong.

You picked what everneo correctly said and applied to an experiment you thought it applied to, but you were just mistaken.

And I'm surprised that you're still claiming that GPS nonsense...

He said she said. Whatever. Come back if you ever have a concrete argument.

My arguement stands as valid physics. You have failed to post any physics responses. You rely upon rhetoric and merely citing theory. Observation, test data and rational thought discards your position as reality.

Whatever. Come back when you have a physical argument.

Whatever. Come back when you have a physical argument.

Your continued rhetorical responses do not alter the posted physics. Try again.

If 2 frames are in different world lines then one validly observes the other's time is dilated till their world lines merge again.

What part of "we are not talking about 'Observes'" do you not understand?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Alfred-Brian-anim.html

if possible go thro' the relativity tutorial in that site.

Not necessary.

each moving clock is compared to earth clock seperately & directlly not involving a 'common' 3rd frame, right?

This what i said : It is inherent in SRT when 2 or more frames have relative velocity among themselves, the relative velocity of a frame and other INDIVIDUAL frames to be taken seperately, not to find a COMMON frame

BTW, the time dilation in Hafele & Keating experiment is net of gravitational and kinematic effect and the observed time dilations were close to what was predicted.

time dilations due to gravitional effect are almost equal gain in time for both moving clocks.

kinematic effect has different signs (loss and gain) for east & westward clocks respectively in the derivation (they used angular velocity for surface clock with explanation) given here :

- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html

Edit : just noticed funkstar has already given the link few minutes before this post.


Opps. You inadvertantly forgot to tell the entire story:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

The trend shown in Figure 2 was derived from the average of the four clocks. The results from the individual clocks was not disclosed; they are published here for the first time in Columns 2 and 5 of Table 3. Taking the mathematical average of Columns 2 or 5 is meaningless; on the Eastward trip, clock 408 gained 166ns, while the theory forecast a loss of 40ns; on the Westward trip clock 361 lost 44ns, while the theory forecast a gain of 275ns!
7. Conclusions


The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a failry steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests.

And this by the experimenter himself in a secret memo to the US Navy before publishing the massaged data.


************** Extract from following Link ********************

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/16133.htm

"Most people (myself included) would be reluctant to agree that the time
gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the
difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."

- Hafele, Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report, 1971.

Obtained by A G Kelly two decades later under the Freedom of Information
Act.
************************************************** ***

Your continued rhetorical responses do not alter the posted physics. Try again.

Turn that mirror on yourself, MacM.

Turn that mirror on yourself, MacM.

When, if ever, might we expect a bit of physics from you? You are not responding to information posted.

Since you don't seem to want to listen to me then jperhaps you might listen to a physicist from CERN:

************************************************** *****
By: J.H.Field - CERN

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F9902048

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/fulltext?format=application/pdf&identifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aphysics%2F0403094
************************************************** ******

So now is Mr Field a quack too or is SRT generally a matter of perception, as I have repeatedly said, and not physical reality?

Can you give me a brief summary of Mr Field's ideas?

What part of "we are not talking about 'Observes'" do you not understand?

Do you understand the animation posted? It is not about mere observation.


Not necessary.

Not so appealing read, uh?

Opps. You inadvertantly forgot to tell the entire story:...

H & K test has no connection with our discussion. It was brought up by 2inq.
The author of your link questions the technicalities of the test not SRT 'time dilation'.

Can you give me a brief summary of Mr Field's ideas?

What you can't read?

Do you understand the animation posted? It is not about mere observation.




Not so appealing read, uh?

Fields is a far better read. You should try it.

H & K test has no connection with our discussion. It was brought up by 2inq.

False. You raised the issue Here claiming it supported the validity of SRT claims.

The author of your link questions the technicalities of the test not SRT 'time dilation'.

And I suppose you miss the point that the H&K test data was falsified to print the report. Remember it was not merely the author that exposed the fraud. The fraud is selfevident based on the internal Navy memo by Keating himself saying the test was a disappointing failure.

MacM:

What? You don't know what Field is claiming?

MacM:

What? You don't know what Field is claiming?

Of course I do but the fact that he concurs with the fact that SRT is "Perception", not real physical change except under certain conditions, is precisely what I have been trying to tell you.

But of course you are better educated and therefore don't need to listen to MacM. I thought perhaps, just perhaps you might listen to some one better educated than yourself. But I guess not.

False. You raised the issue Here claiming it supported the validity of SRT claims.

False? It was my reply to 2inq who first brought up H&K test into the discussion.



And I suppose you miss the point that the H&K test data was falsified to print the report. Remember it was not merely the author that exposed the fraud. The fraud is selfevident based on the internal Navy memo by Keating himself saying the test was a disappointing failure.

If Keating himself said that he was not satisfied with the results as against the predictions, how it is a fraud? If SR time dilation is fraud none of the moving clocks should show loss in time, but only gain due to gravitaional time dilation of surface clocks. You are confusing the alleged failure of a test with failure of SRT.

Fields is a far better read. You should try it.

Did you try? and agree with him that SR time dilation is real?

MacM:

Of course I do but the fact that he concurs with the fact that SRT is "Perception", not real physical change except under certain conditions, is precisely what I have been trying to tell you.

Funny. I thought you were trying to tell me that SRT is just wrong, and internally inconsistent - which is wrong, as I have shown you many times.

Are you now saying that SRT is correct, but "only perception"? If so, then you're making some progress.

But of course you are better educated and therefore don't need to listen to MacM. I thought perhaps, just perhaps you might listen to some one better educated than yourself. But I guess not.

What makes you think this Field guy is better educated than me? You don't know anything about my education, and I suspect you don't know anything about Field's, either.

I read the first paper. I'm sure you didn't understand what it was about, mostly. Here's the part you probably did understand:

Einstein’s great achievement in his first paper on Special Relativity [1] was, for the first time, to clearly disentangle in Classical Electromagnetism, the purely geometrical and kinematical effects embodied in the Lorentz Transformation from dynamics. In spite of this, papers still appear from time to time in the literature claiming that moving objects ‘really’ contract [6] or that moving clocks ‘really’ run slow [7] for dynamical reasons, or even that such dynamical effects are the true basis of Special Relativity and should be taught as such [8]. As it has been shown above that a moving object can apparently shrink or expand, and identical moving clocks can apparently run fast or slow, depending only on how they are observed, it is clear that they cannot ‘really’ shrink, or run slow, respectively. If a moving object actually shrinks for dynamical reasons it is hard to see how the same object, viewed in a different way (in fact only illuminated differently in its own rest frame) can be seen to expand. Certainly both effects cannot be dynamically explained. In fact the Lorentz Transformation, as applied to space-time, describes only the
appearance of space-time events, a purely geometrical property. The apparent distortions are of geometrical origin, the space-time analogues of the apparent distortions of objects in space, described by the laws of perspective, when they are linearly projected into a two dimensional sub-space by a camera or the human eye.

I actually found the paper quite interesting. I agree with this conclusion, in general.

You, of course, have misinterpreted it to suit your own prejudices. Field isn't saying that there is some, single, absolute "real" frame, and all others are "only perception". That's what you'd like to think, but it's not the case. What he is saying is that choosing a frame gives one view of spacetime - just as choosing a viewing location at the Eiffel Tower will give you one view of the Tower. Changing your frame is analogous to changing your viewing location at the Tower.

I have no problem with anybody saying that spacetime is fixed and real. But that's not YOUR argument. You're saying that one particular slice of spacetime is special - a slice which you change willy-nilly as you please. Field doesn't say that, though I'm sure you can't understand most of his paper.

Evereno,
Your reference to Hafele & Keating needs an up date. The experiemtnal results as claimed need further scrutiny.



http://216.239.63.104/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dipmat.unipg.it%2F~bartoc ci%2FH%26KPaper.htm

Geistkiesel

So, it is fine to use a 'common' frame in General Theory, but not Special Theory? Is this why Special Theory is not applicable in the Global Positioning System, because of all the orbital planes and motions in the satellite constellation?

Edit: I just thought of something else. Hafele & Keating really screwed up, didn't they? They sent cesium clocks around the Earth in OPPOSITE directions, then tried to compare them with a clock at the U S Naval Observatory on the surface of the Earth. Since the clocks on the jet aircraft were traveling at essentially the same velocities relative to the surface clock, the time dilation should have been nearly the same on each of the traveling clocks relative to the third clock (reference frame) on the ground. The clocks that traveled East LOST 59 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock and the clocks that traveled West GAINED 275 nanoseconds relative to the Earth clock. I wonder what kind of preferred reference frame this was in? I guess they disproved Special Theory with their preferred frame, didn't they? Or does Special Relativity not apply to this experiment?

2inq,
Here's a Hafele & Keating link questioning the results.
http://216.239.63.104/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dipmat.unipg.it%2F~bartoc ci%2FH%26KPaper.htm
Geistkiesel :cool:

Evereno,
Your reference to Hafele & Keating needs an up date. The experiemtnal results as claimed need further scrutiny.



http://216.239.63.104/search?sourceid=navclient-menuext&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dipmat.unipg.it%2F~bartoc ci%2FH%26KPaper.htm

Geistkiesel

MacM already provided a link to the same paper.

False? It was my reply to 2inq who first brought up H&K test into the discussion.

Irrelevant. You posted it as supporting proof of the validity of SRT. Even quoting the falsified data and commenting on how accurate it was.

If Keating himself said that he was not satisfied with the results as against the predictions, how it is a fraud? If SR time dilation is fraud none of the moving clocks should show loss in time, but only gain due to gravitaional time dilation of surface clocks.

False. Clocks do show time dilation due to motion but not in accordance with SRT's relative velocity.

You are confusing the alleged failure of a test with failure of SRT.

True enough. But data that was even completely reverse of predicted results were buried and discarded from the published data. On the whole the test was a total failure and it is fraud because Keating admitted that in a internal "Secret" memo, not intended to be shown to the outside world but the FOIA spolied their effort to defraud.

Irrelevant. You posted it as supporting proof of the validity of SRT. Even quoting the falsified data and commenting on how accurate it was.

You have reading problem. Start with 2inq's post.

False. Clocks do show time dilation due to motion but not in accordance with SRT's relative velocity.

How?

True enough. But data that was even completely reverse of predicted results were buried and discarded from the published data. On the whole the test was a total failure and it is fraud because Keating admitted that in a internal "Secret" memo, not intended to be shown to the outside world but the FOIA spolied their effort to defraud.

Do you have the data of individual clocks? You are sounding more authentic when saying "But data that was even completely reverse of predicted results.."

Let us see how it is 'completely reverse' of the predicted results.

Still , this diversion by J&K test affair does not change the fact that your common frame idea has no place in SRT. You are yet to answer whether you agree with JH Field or not.

A small correction. If they are moving in the same direction it is

|u-v|/(1-uv/c^2);

if they are moving in opposite direction it is

|u-(-v)|/(1-(-uv)/c^2) = |u+v|/(1+uv/c^2) \



In both case B and C are in one and the same FR. Do you agree?

You have reading problem. Start with 2inq's post.

Wrong. Your post stands on its own as a claim by you of the validity of SRT based on result from the H&K tests.

How?

You might try learning what GPS dictates in terms of time dilation due to velocity.

Do you have the data of individual clocks? You are sounding more authentic when saying "But data that was even completely reverse of predicted results.."

Let us see how it is 'completely reverse' of the predicted results.

I assumed you could read and posted the link to an analysis of the specific clock(s) data. So yes the specific clock raw data is available and was obtained via the FOIA.

Still , this diversion by J&K test affair does not change the fact that your common frame idea has no place in SRT.

And SRT has no place in physics without it.

You are yet to answer whether you agree with JH Field or not.

In what respect. He has written dozens of papers. I posted links to two. Do I agree that SR is mostly about "Perception" and not physical reality? You bet.

You might try learning what GPS dictates in terms of time dilation due to velocity.

GPS is an application of Einstein's relativity. It doesn't "dictate" anything.

GPS is an application of Einstein's relativity. It doesn't "dictate" anything.

If you can't address the physics issue you should just sit quietly on the sideline.

James is such a know-nothing doodle head.

(yea i'm tipsy)

Your post stands on its own as a claim by you of the validity of SRT based on result from the H&K tests.

It is based on more authentic link given in that post :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html


You might try learning what GPS dictates in terms of time dilation due to velocity.

The day you learn what GPS is all about, you can advise others. I have more important life-long ambitions than educating you.

I assumed you could read and posted the link to an analysis of the specific clock(s) data. So yes the specific clock raw data is available and was obtained via the FOIA.

The conclusion of Kelly is "The H & K tests prove nothing." as against your claim that it disproves SR time dilation.


And SRT has no place in physics without it.

You must be talking of your version of SRT, then.

In what respect. He has written dozens of papers. I posted links to two. Do I agree that SR is mostly about "Perception" and not physical reality? You bet.

from your first link :

In fact the Lorentz Transformation, as applied to space-time, describes only the appearance of space-time events, a purely geometrical property. The apparent distortions are of geometrcial orgin, the space-time analogues of apparent distortions of objects in space, described by the laws of perspective, when they are linearly projected into a two dimensional sub-space by a camera or the human eye.

Your concept of 'physical reality' is born out of your ignorance on space-time geometry and distorts your understanding of SRT. Your reality depends on your position in space-time geometry with respect to every other object/event that has a relative velocity with you and hence have their own reality in space-time. There is no 'absolute reality' common for any 2 events that have relative velocity. If you happen to understand this you would understand what JH Field says.

everneo,

Please answer, do you think that there is a time dilation between B and C which moves in opposite directions but with equal velocities wrt A?

Xgen,

From A, if B and C undergo exactly similar acceleration and reach -v and v respectively then :

1. From A's frame they should have same time dilation but different from A's.

2. Though world lines of B and C are similar, their frames cannot be same from A because there is a relative velocity between B & C; the world lines of B & C are on either side of A's world line.

3. Since B & C have relative velocity between themselves they are not in same frame from eithers' perspective. Mutual time dilation, when they have relative velocity, by lorentz factor, is inevitable between B & C from either perspective, enforced by space-time geometry.

Did you see the animation i posted a few pages back?

1. From A's frame they should have same time dilation but different from A's.


Exactly, I will demonstrate the srt math behind this. From the point of view of B the other 2 frames looks in this way:

<PRE>
-v -v
-------------> --------------------->
B..............................A.................. ...............C

</PRE>

as C is inside A frame and is moving wrt A with -v, then wrt B C will has velocity from 2*v/sqrt(1+v^2/c^2),

however in A frame the velocity of B wrt C will lokks 0 because:

v = (v'-v0)/(1-v0v'/c^2), v' = v, v0 = v, then according to A B and C do not has relative velocity and are in one and the same FR .

3. Since B & C have relative velocity between themselves they are not in same frame from eithers' perspective. Mutual time dilation, when they have relative velocity, by lorentz factor, is inevitable between B & C from either perspective, enforced by space-time geometry

It is a clear absurd. How can B and C be in one FR wrt one observer and not in the same FR wrt another observer?

If B and C has time-dilation between them then explain me the outcome from the following experiment:

In B and C time is measured from atomic clocks. After some time (local time!) their readings are sended to an observer in A frame by light beams (it do not matters if they are received simultaneously in A, there was another disagreement about this in sciforums). The observer analizes the data and calculates how much time has passed since B and C had started from point A (where their clocks had been synchronized). It is imposible for him to find that there had been passed diferent times! If we considered A absolutely immovable then both times should be equal because in A, B and C had passed equal paths. How is possible in the same time B and C to has llarge mutual time-dilation and to be in the same FR according to A? Both perspectives are self-exclusive.

A doesn't consider B and C to be at rest in the same FOR, because your calculation of the relative speed is wrong. Remeber, velocity is a one-dimensional vector and therefore has a sign.

In A's frame C has velocity v, and B has velocity -v. The relative speed between B and C (i.e. as seen from their frames) is

|v - (-v)| / (1 - (v*(-v)/c²)) = 2v / (1 + v²/c²)

which is certainly not zero.

A doesn't consider B and C to be at rest in the same FOR, because your calculation of the relative speed is wrong. Remeber, velocity is a one-dimensional vector and therefore has a sign.

It is not wrong. See the sketch below:
<PRE>
v -v -v
<---------- -----------> ---------------->
B ................................. A ................................ C
</PRE>

It is how |A and C are seen from B, C is inside A. Both A and C are moving wrt B in one direction and velocities has the same sign

v = (v'-v0)/(1-v0v'/c^2) - that is how we calculate the velocity between B and C in A but according to B. The velocities are with the same sign.

Okay. Say A is moving with velocity u wrt. B and C is moving with velocity v wrt. A.

Now, you want to find the relative velocity w of C wrt. B, right?

v
u -------->
-------->
B A C
----------------->
w


Well, in that case the velocity addition formula is

w = u+v / (1 + uv/c²)

u and v have the same sign in your concrete case, so w is simply not zero. So, you are using the velocity addition formula wrong. Here's (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html) a page that explains it. Alternatively, set it up and use the Lorentz transforms.

It is based on more authentic link given in that post :

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...tiv/airtim.html

Rhetoric which does not address the facts of the case as emperically derived.

The day you learn what GPS is all about, you can advise others. I have more important life-long ambitions than educating you.

Bad joke. If you had followed any of the threads both I and 2Ing.... have discussed GPS in you might just know what you are talking about.

FYI: You do not have the capacity to teach the subject.

The conclusion of Kelly is "The H & K tests prove nothing." as against your claim that it disproves SR time dilation.

Which is just fine since I have never said it disproved SR, I said it does not support your claim that it proved SR.

You must be talking of your version of SRT, then.

Please be specific. Post a detailed explanation as to what you believe I have stated which is not part of SR. You and other simply have not followed the consequences of the assumptions to their conclusions. I have and those assumptions are not supported and are not supportable by any standard of actual physics known to man.

from your first link :

In fact the Lorentz Transformation, as applied to space-time, describes only the appearance of space-time events, a purely geometrical property. The apparent distortions are of geometrcial orgin, the space-time analogues of apparent distortions of objects in space, described by the laws of perspective, when they are linearly projected into a two dimensional sub-space by a camera or the human eye.

Your concept of 'physical reality' is born out of your ignorance on space-time geometry and distorts your understanding of SRT. Your reality depends on your position in space-time geometry with respect to every other object/event that has a relative velocity with you and hence have their own reality in space-time. There is no 'absolute reality' common for any 2 events that have relative velocity. If you happen to understand this you would understand what JH Field says.

I do. You do not. You seem to have omitted the more defnite comments about Einstein never having claimed a physical reality to length contraction.

Do I need to re-post his papers or do you admit he has a view which disagrees with SRT. Or should I say he disagrees with your interpretration of SRT and seems to say SRT is in fact specifying an "Apparent but non-physical change"?

I'll gladly take the time and extract the very specific comments which state precisely that.

MacM:

I do. You do not. You seem to have omitted the more defnite comments about Einstein never having claimed a physical reality to length contraction.

Do I need to re-post his papers or do you admit he has a view which disagrees with SRT. I'll gladly take the time and extract the very specific comments which state precisely that.

No one claims an absolute physical reality to time dilation or length contraction. Neither does SRT.

If you had followed any of the threads both I and 2Ing.... have discussed GPS in you might just know what you are talking about.

Your GPS discussion is just a heap of BS.

FYI: You do not have the capacity to teach the subject.

Yes, yes, I don't have the capacity or patience to teach you the ordinary geometry.



Which is just fine since I have never said it disproved SR, I said it does not support your claim that it proved SR.

Whatever is convenient to you.

Please be specific. Post a detailed explanation as to what you believe I have stated which is not part of SR. You and other simply have not followed the consequences of the assumptions to their conclusions. I have and those assumptions are not supported and are not supportable by any standard of actual physics known to man.

To be specific, your bastardized version of SRT in this thread.




I do. You do not. You seem to have omitted the more defnite comments about Einstein never having claimed a physical reality to length contraction.

I see, you still don't get it. physical reality of whom?

Do I need to re-post his papers or do you admit he has a view which disagrees with SRT. Or should I say he disagrees with your interpretration of SRT and seems to say SRT is in fact specifying an "Apparent but non-physical change"?


I am not asking whether he agrees with SRT or not, I am asking whether you are agreeing with what he says as (1) reality and (2)'apparent' effects by LT. State your reply in clear terms.

No one claims an absolute physical reality to time dilation or length contraction. Neither does SRT.

Well this statement bodes well for you except it is untrue. James R, chroot, and many others have claimed physical reality. Just as I claim physical reality for time dilation (but not reciprocity).

James R, chroot, and many others have claimed physical reality.

For the record, the physical reality is spacetime. Each reference frame sees a particular cross-section of spacetime, and each cross-section is equally valid and as "real" as any other.

Now you have this statement from me, please do not misquote my views in future, MacM.

For the record, the physical reality is spacetime. Each reference frame sees a particular cross-section of spacetime, and each cross-section is equally valid and as "real" as any other.

Now you have this statement from me, please do not misquote my views in future, MacM.

I do not believe I see any mis-representation of your position. I only see your position is unjustified by data and rational physics.

Whatever, MacM. Come back when you have a physical argument.

Okay. Say A is moving with velocity u wrt. B and C is moving with velocity v wrt. A.

Now, you want to find the relative velocity w of C wrt. B, right?

Code:

v
u -------->
-------->
B A C
----------------->
w

Well, in that case the velocity addition formula is

w = u+v / (1 + uv/c2)

u and v have the same sign in your concrete case, so w is simply not zero. So, you are using the velocity addition formula wrong. Here's a page that explains it. Alternatively, set it up and use the Lorentz transforms.


Yes, you are right. I was wrong , if we takes the 'signed' velocities wrt A relative velocity between B and C will also seems to be 2v / 1 + v^2/c^2, sorry.

But do you understand where the paradox is. If there was only B and C frames it is clear that there is time dilation and that it can be measured. But if it is known that B and C had started from A with constant velocities -v and v in A , the measured time in B and C would be equal, and according to A the time in B and C frame would flows with equal speed. I will repeat again the whole experiment.

From A, B and C starts with equal speeds (wrt A) but in opposite directions. There are atomic clocks in B and C which meassures local times and send them with light signals to point A. There signals are analized and is checkled is there time shift between B and C. I claim that if nothing else is known about the whole apparatus there should be no difference between readings of B' and C' clocks. How then it is possible B and C to has time dilation?

B and C appear to time dilate equally, and are ticking in synch only as seen from A's frame. This result doesn't apply to B's and C's frames.

The clocks measure the local times in B and C, not the A'time. Then they send back their readings to A where they are only compared without to be converted to A time. What would be the outcome of the experiment?

And why, by the way "B and C appear to time dilate equally and are ticking in synch only as seen from A's frame " ? We determined that according to A there are relative velocity between B and C - 2v / 1+v^2/c^2. How can at the same time there is equal time dilation wrt A?

A & B having relative velocity -v;
A & C having relative velocity v.
It is one to one.
A has no business in considering the relative velocity between B and C if it is non-zero while calculating B's (or C's) time dilation.

From A, B and C starts with equal speeds (wrt A) but in opposite directions. There are atomic clocks in B and C which meassures local times and send them with light signals to point A. There signals are analized and is checkled is there time shift between B and C. I claim that if nothing else is known about the whole apparatus there should be no difference between readings of B' and C' clocks. How then it is possible B and C to has time dilation?

You are precisely correct Xgen in terms of physical realities, but don't expect them to admit it. They will argue frames and simultaniety alter that conclusion and from A and C's view there exists time dilation. In fact they will argue that each runs slower than the other.

That alone is sufficient to completely disregard anything else they say. It is shear nonsense. It is not physics. The gamma function appears to be the consequence of actual motion induced by acceleration and has nothing to do with relative velocity other than by occasional accident wheree on remains stationary while one accelerates such that the total relative veloicty is from one motion.

Where both accelerate equally, you have relative velocity but "Mutual Dilation" such that there is no systemic accumulated time dilation between clocks.

Xgen, it's three different frames. Why shouldn't there be time dilation between B and C?

Oh, and ignore that MacM noise. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Xgen, it's three different frames. Why shouldn't there be time dilation between B and C?

Oh, and ignore that MacM noise. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

Xgen, let me suggest you consider who posts sound physics data in a logical process and who seems unable to talk physics but can only recite what he has been told by others that relativity says.

Relativity sucks and you must forfiet physics to accept it as physics. The choice is yours. Until you see the big mouths actually post something in physics terms and not some Xerox copy of a relativity text book keep your mind open.

It is like trying to get the Pope to teach you the truth about evolution. He tells you evolution is incorrect because the Bible is the word of God and God says it was he that made all, etc. Relativist can no more discuss practical physics than the Pope can the merits of evolution.

Not only is that remark offensive, it's also wrong. My girl friend was educated in a Roman Catholic convent, and now has a PhD in Evolutionary Genetics.

In fact I beleive that the highest concentration of anti-evolutionists is to be found the the Southern US states.

You are precisely correct Xgen in terms of physical realities, but don't expect them to admit it. They will argue frames and simultaniety alter that conclusion and from A and C's view there exists time dilation. In fact they will argue that each runs slower than the other.

That alone is sufficient to completely disregard anything else they say. It is shear nonsense. It is not physics. The gamma function appears to be the consequence of actual motion induced by acceleration and has nothing to do with relative velocity other than by occasional accident wheree on remains stationary while one accelerates such that the total relative veloicty is from one motion.

Where both accelerate equally, you have relative velocity but "Mutual Dilation" such that there is no systemic accumulated time dilation between clocks.


Thank you that you see the picture. I am not against SRT, I had my own understanding about relativity, I trust it more then SRT. I think that I understand what is behind SRT equations but even if you slightly go aside from them big absurds arise. Thus maybe you are right that SRT sucks. That is very bad because there is no stable relativity theory.

In the described above case I see contradiction because from my point of view wrt A there should be no difference between B and C and their times are equal (if A coinsides with the absolute space, otherwise there may be slight difference). But if we compare B and C directly it follows that there is a difference. It is not possible in the same time dilations of B and C to be equal wrt A, but different when comparing to each other. The knowledge that there is frame A changes everything.

Xgen, it's three different frames. Why shouldn't there be time dilation between B and C?

Oh, and ignore that MacM noise. He doesn't know what he's talking about.


Let's consider things from the point of view of A. It is clear that since velocity v participate in gamma as v^2 the sign do not matter and time dilation between B and C compared to A is equal:

dt'(B) = dt'(C) = dt(A)/gamma(A)

ok, but if we compare them directly it turns that they are different because the velocity between B and C viewed from A is 2v / (1+v^2/c^2)

it turns out that we can compare B and C to A but we can't compare them directly, or the reverse becase the both cases are self-exclusive. Two frames can not has different time dilations to each other and at the same time to have equal time dilations wrt 3rd frame.

Do you admit that there is a problem?

There's no problem.

Simultaneity is also relative, so the "at the same time" you mention is only in the A frame. B and C will not agree. Your problem is that you think of time as separate from space, and therefore believe that it makes sense to compare clock rates without frames. It doesn't. B will also see A's clock running slow, remember.

The line seems to be crackling. I suggest turning on your "MacM filter" to remove that irritant.

There's no problem.

Simultaneity is also relative, so the "at the same time" you mention is only in the A frame. B and C will not agree. Your problem is that you think of time as separate from space, and therefore believe that it makes sense to compare clock rates without frames. It doesn't. B will also see A's clock running slow, remember.

The line seems to be crackling. I suggest turning on your "MacM filter" to remove that irritant.


:) MacM sometimes pops-up very useful things , why don't yopu all just stick to the physics and stop irritate him, it is not justified to disregard him as stupid or crackpot only because he disagrees with the modern physics.

What you are practicly telling me with the rest of your post is that we can't compare B and C directly, and that this comparing is something complex and so on...., I accept your answer but I am very unsatisfy from it and that is why I call the relativity theory weak. The reason for this misunderstanding and absurd is that some people do not makes difference between reality and observation. SRT is about observations not about reality. Reality may be much different. We may, observe for example, from the point of view of C that there is a time dilation wrt B but this may not be true, it would be visual deception.

Your problem is that you think of time as separate from space ...

I know very well that time is not separate from space. That is why I regard time as 'local'. But how to compare time in two different points? If we can't then the concept 'Frame of reference' become totaly senseless.

What you are practicly telling me with the rest of your post is that we can't compare B and C directly, and that this comparing is something complex and so on....,

Well, you can compare them, but the results you get are frame dependent. Not absolute.

An explorative sidenote: There's a thing called the spacetime interval, which is invariant between frames, and it's the equivalent of distance in 3D, but in 4D spacetime instead. It's difficult to give a simple physical signification of it, however. For instance,