OK - Pete and Funkstar, here is the SR problem you wanted. Assume all time units in your favorite measurement: years, hours, minutes, etc but then distance units must be give the corresponding equivalent, light-years, light-hours, light-minutes, etc such that c=1.

We have two mother ships S1 and S2 that exist at the positions, (x,y), of (0,0) and (0,1) respectively. That is:

S1 has position x=0, y=0
S2 has position x=0, y=1

Each mother ship, S1 and S2, has a scout ship, S1' and S2' respectively. For the entire problem, we will assume S1 and S1' read each other's clocks and S2 and S2' read each other's clocks.

At t=0, each scout ship exists within their respective motherships. That is they are at rest with respect to their motherships at the position x=0. furthermore, we specify that the motherships are at rest with repect to each other. In other words, all ships, S1, S1', S2, and S2' exist in the frame S at x=0 and t=0 so all of their clocks read 0.

At t=0+ (immediately after t=0), the scout ships instantaneously accelerate to .9c with respect to the motherships which are still in frame S. The frame in which the scout ships are in after this instantaneous acceleration will be refered to as frame S'.

Now, assume the scout ships travel forever at .9c. Since the motion of the two scout ships are completely in sync, (question 1:) will their clocks also be completely in sync?

At a time interval, Δt=100 as measured in the S frame, the mother ship S1 instantaneously accelerates to the S' frame. That is, at t=100 in the S frame, S1 accelerates to .9c with respect to the S frame. (question 2:) What is the time that S1 reads on the clock of S1'?

At a time interval, Δt=10 as measured in the S frame, the mother ship S1 instantaneously decelerates back to the S frame. That is, at t=110 in the S frame, S1 decelerates to 0c with respect to the S frame. (question 3:) What is the time on the clock of S1?

At a time interval, Δt=10 as measured in the S frame, the scout ship S2' instantaneously decelerates back to the S frame. That is, at t=120 in the S frame, S2' decelerates to 0c with respect to the S frame. (question 4:) What is the time that S2 reads on the clock of S2'?

(question 5:) What is the time on the clock of S2?

This is not an SR problem, since it involves many accelerations.

Au contraire! See the relativistic rocket equations, I figured you of all people would know accelerations are acceptable in SR - this is even a given in the -superluminal experiment-. How do you explain the twin paradox in SR without acceleration? -the same acceleration is used here as in the twin paradox example- -instantaneous acceleration-

Ok, Aer. SR can handle accelerations, but if you want quantitative results you'll need to specify details of the accelerations, and set up the relevant integrations. Specifying "instantaneous acceleration" is non-physical and insufficient if you want quantitative answers.

No it is not, the acceleration time interval is insignificant to the final result. I originally posted a similar problem to this on physicsforums but included time intervals of Δt=1 for the acceleration phases. The people there complained and whined until I changed it to instantaneous acceleration (i.e. Δt -> 0).

Where are Pete and Funkstar?
The answers to these questions are very easy to compute. There is followup analysis to come :D

Ok, Aer. I only saw your PM today, and though I don't quite remember what this is for...

Now, assume the scout ships travel forever at .9c. Since the motion of the two scout ships are completely in sync, (question 1: ) will their clocks also be completely in sync?

Assuming that they are travelling along the x-axis: Yes, from both S and S'.
Assuming that they are travelling along the y-axis: No, but I need to know in what frame you consider the motion to be completely in sync from, to tell you the details of which frame they are in sync in, and which frame they are out of sync in.

I'll assume the direction of motion is the x-axis from here on (as is standard.)

At a time interval, Δt=100 as measured in the S frame, the mother ship S1 instantaneously accelerates to the S' frame. That is, at t=100 in the S frame, S1 accelerates to .9c with respect to the S frame. (question 2: ) What is the time that S1 reads on the clock of S1'?

γ = 2.294

In the S frame, S1' is at (assuming lightseconds as units for length)

x=90
t=100

which transforms to

x'=0
t'=43.59

So, the reading is ca. 43.59s.

At a time interval, Δt=10 as measured in the S frame, the mother ship S1 instantaneously decelerates back to the S frame. That is, at t=110 in the S frame, S1 decelerates to 0c with respect to the S frame. (question 3: ) What is the time on the clock of S1?

Okay, I'm a bit tired so I'll be lazy from now on. Depending on your reply I may do the full transforms later, but I simply don't have the energy right now.

Time dilation gives that during 10s in S, S1 will accumulate only ca. 4.36s in S', so the clock should read 94.36s.

At a time interval, Δt=10 as measured in the S frame, the scout ship S2' instantaneously decelerates back to the S frame. That is, at t=120 in the S frame, S2' decelerates to 0c with respect to the S frame. (question 4: ) What is the time that S2 reads on the clock of S2'?

120/γ = 52.31s

(question 5: ) What is the time on the clock of S2?
I assume you mean at time t=120 in the S frame. It reads 120 second, of course.

Your ball.

Regarding question 1, yes all motion is in the x direction as is standard. The y component was only mentioned to say that the two motherships did not exist in the exact same volume of space.

Assuming that they are travelling along the x-axis: Yes, from both S and S'. 1) Correct.

So, the reading is ca. 43.59s. 2) Incorrect.
S' is the rest frame here since S1 is accelerating to the S' frame. so: v=.9c t=100 x=0 tp = γ(t - v*x) = γ * t = 2.294 * 100 = 229.4 So, time on S1' is: 229.4

Time dilation gives that during 10s in S, S1 will accumulate only ca. 4.36s in S', so the clock should read 94.36s. 3) Close, but incorrect.

120/γ = 52.31s 4) Correct.

I assume you mean at time t=120 in the S frame. It reads 120 second, of course. 5) Correct.

hint: You cannot use the original lorentz setup for all answers. You must setup new lorentz transforms after each acceleration - I was hinting to this in the story problem by giving you Δt values rather than just strict time measurments in the S frame. I hope this makes sense without further elaboration.

Told you I was tired.

2) Incorrect.

You're right. The frame change happens for the mothership S1, so

x=0
t=100

translates to

x'=-206.47
t'=229.42

3) Close, but incorrect.

I had gotten 90s instead 100s into it. Also, I was confusing frames. Properly, this time:

S1 will be at x = 9, t=110

translates into S' as

x'=-206.47 (good enough)
t'=233.77

So from S1's point of view (233.77-229.42) = 4.35s have passed in the S' frame + the 100 seconds before he entered it. So 104.35s (ca.)


So, what's up?

t'=229.42 2) Correct.


So 104.35s (ca.) 3) Correct.

Let's look at things from the perspective of S1.

Let the first time interval, Δt=100 in which S1 is stationary in the S frame be refered to as "time interval 1".

Let the second time interval Δt=10 in which S1 is stationary in the S' frame be refered to as "time interval 2".

Let the third time interval Δt=10 in which S1 is stationary in the S frame be refered to as "time interval 3".

From our conclusions above, we can infer that S2' is not in the S' frame according to S1 during time interval 2. Also, we can infer that S2' is not in the S frame according to S1 during the time interval 3.

But we know that S2' is either in the S' frame or the S frame. Specifically we know that S2' is in the S' frame for all t=0+ until t=120, where S2' enters the S frame. But S1 doesn't see it in either the frame S' when S1 enters S' or the frame S when S1 returns to the S frame, until t=114.4 according to the clock of S1. The relativity of simultaneity is truely beautiful.

I'm annoyed at myself, now. I've been preaching how the Lorentz transforms is the way to do str, and the first time afterwards, I skip over them and make gross errors.

Stupid!

Oh, and I'm off to bed in a few. I'll be interested to see what you get from this.

I must admit, I fail to see a problem.

Remember that the two frames do not agree on what those time intervals mean.

I'll sleep on it, though.

I must admit - I thought you wouldn't see a problem as you don't accept common sense as having any say-so in Relativity. :m: :bugeye:

Would you say that S1 sees S2' at rest in the S' frame during time interval 1, at rest in the S frame during time interval 2, at rest in the S' frame during time interval 3, and at rest in the S frame at any time after as recorded by S1?

Edited to include the phrases "at rest" where appropriate.

Objects don't exist in only one frame. A frame is a point of view. All objects exist in all frames at all times. Events in spacetime can be viewed from any frame.

Statements like "S1 moves from frame S to frame S'" are meaningless, since S1 exists in both frames always (though with different velocities).

Objects don't exist in only one frame. Of course not. That is why I refer to what frame S1 would see S2' in.

A frame is a point of view. YES.

All objects exist in all frames at all times. You are missing the point - by "accelerate to frame S' " I am implying the object is not at rest in S' before the acceleration and is at rest in the frame S' after the acceleration.

Events in spacetime can be viewed from any frame. Good observation. Agreed.



Statements like "S1 moves from frame S to frame S'" are meaningless, You very well know the context of that statement is: "S1 moves from being at rest in frame S to at rest in frame S' ". That is not meaningless! Did you even read the story problem?


since S1 exists in both frames always (though with different velocities). Wow. You are truely grasping at straws here. Try to do a little something called reading comprehension.

Funkstar was able to comprehend the story problem and come up with the correct answers. Why can't you?

Just for you, I will repeat the line in which frame S and frame S' are defined:

At t=0+ (immediately after t=0), the scout ships instantaneously accelerate to .9c with respect to the motherships which are still in frame S. The frame in which the scout ships are in after this instantaneous acceleration will be refered to as frame S'.

Sorry to pop in like this but I'm in a foul mood.

JamesR, you are clearly an idiot without the ability to read at an even gradeschool level. Your physics knowledge is that of a caveman. You have been shown to be incorrect by MacM, Aer, Geist, and many others. When will you admit you are out of your depth here?

You grasp at straws like a drowning man. Give up and let the real physics gurus here get on with things. Quit disturbing our threads with "mainstream" so-called "physics". Bah. Fool. Dupe of the establishment.

Sorry to pop in like this but I'm in a foul mood.

JamesR, you are clearly an idiot without the ability to read at an even gradeschool level. Your physics knowledge is that of a caveman. You have been shown to be incorrect by MacM, Aer, Geist, and many others. When will you admit you are out of your depth here?

You grasp at straws like a drowning man. Give up and let the real physics gurus here get on with things. Quit disturbing our threads with "mainstream" so-called "physics". Bah. Fool. Dupe of the establishment.
:D How dare you jest?

Any reasonable person would have to conclude that all of the arguments James R has presented in this thread have been moot and even incorrect. I do respect the knowledge of James R as I've seeked his knowledge in other areas. However, his posts in this thread show that he does not intend to take my story problem seriously and I doubt he has even read the entire thing.

Foul, foul mood.

Aer:

The frame in which the scout ships are in after this instantaneous acceleration will be refered to as frame S'.

After acceleration, the scout ships are still in frame S as much as they are in frame S'.

Aer:



After acceleration, the scout ships are still in frame S as much as they are in frame S'. The frame in which they are at rest in - that is what I meant. Did you really think that I thought an object could only exist in one frame? Sometimes people don't pick the best wording and I admit I fault here sometimes. But come on...

Responding to the first post without reading the rest of the thread:
For the entire problem, we will assume S1 and S1' read each other's clocks and S2 and S2' read each other's clocks.
I'm not sure what you mean by this assumption... it doesn't seem necessary, so I've ignored it.

Since the motion of the two scout ships are completely in sync, (question 1:) will their clocks also be completely in sync?
Yes.
(Note: The reason given is insufficient on its own - it is also necessary that the two scout ships began at the same position in the direction of travel, which they did.)

At a time interval, Δt=100 as measured in the S frame, the mother ship S1 instantaneously accelerates to the S' frame. That is, at t=100 in the S frame, S1 accelerates to .9c with respect to the S frame. (question 2:) What is the time that S1 reads on the clock of S1'?
"Reads" seems like a strong term - to me, it implies actual communication with signal delays. If that's what you're asking, then at the moment of its acceleration, S1 would actually read a time of 100 / (1 + v/c) = 22.9 on the clock of S1'.

However, I suspect you're asking "What does SR predict to be the time shown on the clock of S1' simultaneously with S1 accelerating".
In that case, the answer is frame dependent:
The clock of S1' reads 100 / γ = 43.6 simultaneously in the S frame with S1 accelerating.
The clock of S1' reads 100 γ = 229 simultaneously in the S' frame with S1 accelerating.

I think you're implying a simultaneous measurement in the S' frame, which would make the answer you want 229.

At a time interval, Δt=10 as measured in the S frame, the mother ship S1 instantaneously decelerates back to the S frame. That is, at t=110 in the S frame, S1 decelerates to 0c with respect to the S frame. (question 3:) What is the time on the clock of S1?
100 + 10/γ = 104

At a time interval, Δt=10 as measured in the S frame, the scout ship S2' instantaneously decelerates back to the S frame. That is, at t=120 in the S frame, S2' decelerates to 0c with respect to the S frame. (question 4:) What is the time that S2 reads on the clock of S2'?
Again with the "reads"... What do you actually mean?
This time, the time of the clock in question at the event in question isn't frame dependent. So, I'll assume you're asking:
"What time is shown on the clock of S2' at the moment it decelerates"
Answer: 120 / γ = 52.3

S2 would actually read this time some time later when the signal arrived.

(question 5:) What is the time on the clock of S2?
120, of course!



Now, let me catch up and see what discussion has resulted...

Did you really think that I thought an object could only exist in one frame?
It's not an unknown idea on these forums, unfortunately :eek:

All your answers are correct :D

Let's look at things from the perspective of S1.

Let the first time interval, Δt=100 in which S1 is stationary in the S frame be refered to as "time interval 1".

Let the second time interval Δt=10 in which S1 is stationary in the S' frame be refered to as "time interval 2".

Let the third time interval Δt=10 in which S1 is stationary in the S frame be refered to as "time interval 3".

From our conclusions above, we can infer that S2' is not [ stationary ] in the S' frame according to S1 during time interval 2.

Also, we can infer that S2' is not [ stationary ] in the S frame according to S1 during the time interval 3.

But we know that S2' is either in the S' frame or the S frame. Specifically we know that S2' is in the S' frame for all t=0+ until t=120, where S2' enters the S frame. But S1 doesn't see it in either the frame S' when S1 enters S' or the frame S when S1 returns to the S frame, until t=114.4 according to the clock of S1. The relativity of simultaneity is truely beautiful.

Is this really a problem? Obviously it looks like a problem... but does it actually produce any real difficulties? Does it stop us from effectively being able to address any physical situations? Say S1 wanted to interact with S2', or S1 wanted to predict if some other object will interact with S2'. Can it be done? Does the situation you point out pose an actual problem?


Such philosophical questions aside, the issue can be resolved by considering what S1 actually sees.

So, what does S1 actually see of S2'?

So, what does S1 actually see of S2'? We are assuming S1 can measure S2' without explaining how. In all actuality, probes from S1 would have to be left before and after each acceleration and these probes would have to gather the actual measurements of S2' in these frames. Then the probes can later be collected and analyzed appropriately.

But regardless, the probes just collect the data for the respective time intervals they apply to. Thus - this is actually what S1 should "see" of S2'. If you want, you can assume the time intervals are in seconds and distance would be measured in light-seconds. Then the delays are not as long.

We are assuming S1 can measure S2' without explaining how. In all actuality, probes from S1 would have to be left before and after each acceleration and these probes would have to gather the actual measurements of S2' in these frames. Then the probes can later be collected and analyzed appropriately.
Yes, but if you consider what s1 does actually see... the problem goes away. No discontinuities. S2' is always apparent, always apparently moving at a well defined speed, first in frame S', then frame S.

The after-the fact analysis of the observations would show up awkward things as far as timing goes... but really, so what?

To me, it just doesn't matter if something at a distance jumps back and forth in time in my frame. So long as there are no local discontinuites, where's the problem?

Like I said, relativists wouldn't see any problem with what I call nonsense here. I must say that I am thoroughly impressed with the faith you people show in this religion Relativity. :m: :D (OK - I don't really regard it as a religion - but the faith is almost synonymous). This was originally the full version of a thread I started titled "A simple relativity problem". But sciforums went down and I was unable to complete it.

Aer,

Do you believe in newtonian mechanics?

I take exception to your question. You can not put Newtonian mechanics on the same level as Relativity as far as theoretical proof is concerned.

I can add a few random terms to the relativity equations that would equally disappear when c approaches infinity. Just because Newton's equations are recovered from the relativity equations is not proof of anything except consistency.

Why, exactly, not?

Why, exactly, not?
I edited my post as I foresaw this question coming :D

My, you are the sly one.

Like I said, relativists wouldn't see any problem with what I call nonsense here.
Well, try thinking of it as light cones. Changing frames is the same as altering the tilt (and angles) of your light cone, wrt. the original one. That means that distant events can jump from future to past (to future) quite easily, like we see it here for S1's view of S1', when changing frames between S and S'.

The relativity of simultaneity means that order reversal of events is possible. This is not a problem.

Objects don't exist in only one frame. A frame is a point of view. All objects exist in all frames at all times. Events in spacetime can be viewed from any frame. ...

Thanks James R , That was the best defination of what a frame is I had ever heard. I know now what a frame is, but thats gona be more trouble for U.

The relativity of simultaneity means that order reversal of events is possible. This is not a problem.The relativity of simultaneity means that order reversal of events is possible. This has never been proven to be true and is nonsense. :m: :D

The relativity of simultaneity means that order reversal of events is possible. This has never been proven to be true and is nonsense. :m: :D
I don't consider it nonsense, mainly because causality is conserved.

Common sense is actually not a very good guide to doing physics, once we leave the orders of magnititude human lives are lived on...

I don't consider it nonsense, mainly because causality is conserved. causality has nothing to do with this! We are just taking measurments - of course what we did were not measurements but calculations according to SR on what our measurements would find. If it turns out our measurements are different, then we have big problem as SR didn't do a good job predicting our measurments.


Common sense is actually not a very good guide to doing physics, once we leave the orders of magnititude human lives are lived on...Fucking bullshit. You call relativity of simultaneity not nonsense just because some theory dictates it, even though it has never been observed. The relativity of simultaneity would only be considered common sense after it is observed. After all, common sense comes from observation in reality. Don't you spit your "theoretical common sense" on me - it is not common sense no matter how many ways/times you say it.

Fucking bullshit. You call relativity of simultaneity not nonsense just because some theory dictates it, even though it has never been observed. The relativity of simultaneity would only be considered common sense after it is observed. After all, common sense comes from observation in reality. Don't you spit your "theoretical common sense" on me - it is not common sense no matter how many ways/times you say it.
Temper!

I'm not saying that relativity of simultaneity is common sense, because it decisively is not. I'm saying that calling it nonsense because it defies common sense is not an argument, because in modern physics things that defy common sense are commonplace, and you should fucking know this!

I'm saying that calling it nonsense because it defies common sense is not an argument, because in modern physics things that defy common sense are commonplace, and you should fucking know this! Everything that defies common sense is yet to be proven - yours too is equally an inadequate argument.

What a strange definition...

Drugs.

Like I said, relativists wouldn't see any problem with what I call nonsense here. I must say that I am thoroughly impressed with the faith you people show in this religion Relativity. :m: :D (OK - I don't really regard it as a religion - but the faith is almost synonymous). This was originally the full version of a thread I started titled "A simple relativity problem". But sciforums went down and I was unable to complete it.

Religion? Oh please...

I consider relativity to be internally consistent, not inconsistent with experiment, so far as I know... and that's it.

I really don't care one way or the other if it's a true picture of reality or not. I do find enjoyment in understanding the model, and in picking out my misunderstandings and those of others. Intellectual exercise, don'tcha know.

If I wanted to go deeper, as you say you do, I'd spend the time to get properly educated. I'd learn the full relativity model (ie General Relativity). I'd study experiments involving SR and GR in great detail - not just "tests", but also practical applications. I'd determine to my own satisfaction whether time dilation, length contraction, and relative simultaneity are meaningful in their own right, or only as consequences of a larger model (a question I don't think you've considered).


Yes, I know you don't like relativity.
Yes, I know you haven't seen any personally satisfying proof.
But I really don't think you'll find any further answers to your questions here, and you don't appear to have anything more to share on the issue - you've said your piece and that's great.

Go learn more.

Everything that defies common sense is yet to be proven
Sounds profound at first glance... but on closer inspection it's just an empty generalisation.

This thread is more useless then my bread-maker...

Aer, the two people that you wanted to answer your question have done so, great. Now what? Was there a point to this at all? (other then James R bashing)

Aer, the two people that you wanted to answer your question have done so, great. Now what? Was there a point to this at all? (other then James R bashing) Yes, the point was to test their faith - it is as strong as ever as suspected :D (One only needs to read above). BTW - I didn't want to post the problem - THEY ASKED FOR IT.

If I wanted to go deeper, as you say you do, I'd spend the time to get properly educated. I'd learn the full relativity model (ie General Relativity). I'd study experiments involving SR and GR in great detail - not just "tests", but also practical applications. I'd determine to my own satisfaction whether time dilation, length contraction, and relative simultaneity are meaningful in their own right, or only as consequences of a larger model (a question I don't think you've considered).
I've merely scratched the surface of going deeper. In fact - I really need to brush up on my fundamentals of Relativity, but I don't find such a thing as useful as having looked at the experiments to date - none of them concern themselves with the idea of length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, or reciprocity. They mainly are experiments of time dilation. And as such we can't be sure that any of the other results are physically real. Bummer...

So, why do professional physicists believe this crap?

and you don't appear to have anything more to share on the issue - you've said your piece and that's great.

I've a lot more I could share but I choose not to :D

I'm still looking over experiments and building off them. I would be happy with either of the following: all results of relativity are fully proved by experiment OR a result of relativity is shown to be erroneous thus requiring the amending of relativity.

So, why do professional physicists believe this crap?

It is the only thing they have come up with to explain time dilation and the fact that Earth does not appear to move in an ether. :rolleyes:

Aer,

If I were to thes length contraction I might do this experiment:

Given: One-way time dilation is proven.

I would send a small probe into the atmosphere at 0.98c designed to detonate after 2.2us. If it dosen't make it to the earth, no length contraction. If it does, length contraction.

Sound familiar?

Rejecting proof just because you don't like it is pretty silly. Given that we KNOW one-way time dilation occurrs, length contraction MUST occurr for muons to reach earth the way they do. It's a valid experiment that clearly demonstrates length contraction.

It is the only thing they have come up with to explain time dilation and the fact that Earth does not appear to move in an ether.

And that light is isotropic and it's speed is independent of the motion of the source.

And that in particle accelerators the effective mass (energy) increases according to SRT.

Aer,

If I were to thes length contraction I might do this experiment:

Given: One-way time dilation is proven.

Let's analyse your assumption.

One-way time dilation. This means to the probe, time on it's clock is actually running slower than the clock on Earth, no? That is, to the probe, the Earth clock is running faster than his own. If this is not what you mean by one-way time dilation, please elaborate.

And that the twin paradox occurs as predicted.

Physics B 150 pg 1-79 (1979).
They stored muons in a storage ring and measured their lifetime. When combined with measurements of the muon lifetime at rest this becomes a highly-relativistic twin scenario (v ~ 0.9994 c), for which the stored muons are the traveling twin and return to a given point in the lab every few microseconds. Muon lifetime at rest:Meyer et al., Physical Review 132, pg 2693; Balandin et al. JETP 40, pg 811 (1974); Bardin et al. Physics Letters 137B, pg 135 (1984). Also a test of the clock hypotheses (below).

You aren't following - we are analysing your example :D (at least I was trying to, it appears you've prepared a laundry list of experiments I've already seen)

Aer:

One-way time dilation. This means to the probe, time on it's clock is actually running slower than the clock on Earth, no? That is, to the probe, the Earth clock is running faster than his own. If this is not what you mean by one-way time dilation, please elaborate.

I only mean that we have no observations of mutually observed dilation - reciprocity - (even though by the symmetry of relativity we know it must happen) and I didn't want to upset you by implying that we did.

I posted the muon analysis before and you rejected it.

I only mean that we have no observations of mutually observed dilation - reciprocity - (even though by the symmetry of relativity we know it must happen) and I didn't want to upset you by implying that we did.
Well then, you can only say length contraction must occur if you assume mutually observed dilation. Your result of length contraction does not follow from your assumption. We can only conclude that length contraction may or may not occur - quite a conclusion, eh?

I posted the muon analysis before and you rejected it. As it necessarily assumes mutually observed time dilation (reciprocity).

No one here has entertained the idea that along with gravity (remember, all gravity is, is the curvature of space according to GR - not some force as described by Newton), massive bodies produce a local ether in space. There are no experiments that I know of that conclude this assumption cannot be true.

If we entertain the idea of the local ether - we see that length contraction does not occur as neither does mutually observed time dilation. But it does offer an explaination for the time dilation that we've seen. And not only that, but it offers the explaination on the quantum level - not just some mumble jumble of relative velocities of macroscopic bodies.

If a muon with rest lifetime of 2.2us is observed to live (by the earth), say, 100us, then we have seen one-way dilation. Yes?

But we know the muon, in it's frame, can ONLY live 2.2us. Therefore, the distance it sees to the earth must appear contracted. No "reciprocity" is mentioned. Nowhere do I mention what the muon sees of the earth clocks.

And not only that, but it offers the explaination on the quantum level - not just some mumble jumble of relative velocities of macroscopic bodies.

Quite the conclusion. You've worked out the math for this?

If a muon with rest lifetime of 2.2us is observed to live (by the earth), say, 100us, then we have seen one-way dilation. Yes?

But we know the muon, in it's frame, can ONLY live 2.2us. Therefore, the distance it sees to the earth must appear contracted. No "reciprocity" is mentioned. Nowhere do I mention what the muon sees of the earth clocks. This is stupid, just because you didn't mention it, doesn't mean it's not there. By assuming the length did contract, you are assuming reciprocity!

Quite the conclusion. You've worked out the math for this? Yes, the conclusion does follow from math. But that is not my interest as the math is useless unless local ether is proven or disproven.

And you should know quite well by now of my attitude towards promoting a theory built upon unsupported claims or unsupported results :D The local ether is unsupported - but nevertheless offers an interesting prediction.

This is stupid, just because you didn't mention it, doesn't mean it's not there. By assuming the length did contract, you are assuming reciprocity!

Stupid? Show me where it assumes time reciprocity? Analyze it and show me.

How the hell does assuming the length contracts mean I assumed time dilation. Are the two intimately connected somehow? Maybe by the symmetry of relativity? Huh? And maybe you just contradicted yourself. Huh?

Stupid? Show me where it assumes time reciprocity? Analyze it and show me.

If a muon with rest lifetime of 2.2us is observed to live (by the earth), say, 100us, then we have seen one-way dilation. Yes? OK

But we know the muon, in it's frame, can ONLY live 2.2us. Yep

Therefore, the distance it sees to the earth must appear contracted. According to SR. If we assume time literally slowed down for the muon because of its motion through a local ether (this is a non-SR explaination), then there would be no length contraction.

No "reciprocity" is mentioned. But time-dilation as explained by SR is assumed, thus reciprocity is assumed.

There done.

How the hell does assuming the length contracts mean I assumed time dilation. :cool:

Are the two intimately connected somehow? SR anyone? yes?

Maybe by the symmetry of relativity? Ding ding ding!

Huh? Huh?

And maybe you just contradicted yourself. Huh? I wish - I mean, you wish.

Aer, you are arguing circularly. You always say "if we assume SR is correct...". How do we know the time dilation that we observe is not some other effect and just stop mentioning SR altogether? It's only proof "if we assume SR is correct..." right?

I tire of this.

Do you accept that muons in their rest frame only live 2.2us on average? You do know what I mean by rest frame, right?

I tire of this.
Agreed. It is a pointless exercise. You and others are much too intimate with SR and I am not willing to accept it just because it was handed down by the Lord Einstein himself. ;)

Do you accept that muons in their rest frame only live 2.2us on average? You do know what I mean by rest frame, right?
Yes, the SR interpretation of rest frame - got it, know it.

Einstein spent his dying days trying to reconsile Relativity into a theory of everything. If he couldn't do it - it probably can't be done :D - but who knows, perhaps some genius will one day figure out the missing link.

I've merely scratched the surface of going deeper. In fact - I really need to brush up on my fundamentals of Relativity, but I don't find such a thing as useful as having looked at the experiments to date - none of them concern themselves with the idea of length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, or reciprocity. They mainly are experiments of time dilation. And as such we can't be sure that any of the other results are physically real. Bummer...

My point exactly with added emphasis on it can never be emperically demonstrated because it is based on false assumptions, disregards alternative assumptions and requires disregarding emperically derived data showing other aspects of relativity such as time dilation (tick rate) when calculating distance using a moving clock.

My point exactly with added emphasis on it can never be emperically demonstrated because it is based on false assumptions,Woah there! I've never said SR is based on false assumptions! In fact, all the assumptions of SR are used. The only detail is: The assumptions are incomplete. What if one was to assume a local ether? We find a totally different explaination for time dilation to start with.

Given that we KNOW one-way time dilation occurrs, length contraction MUST occurr for muons to reach earth the way they do. It's a valid experiment that clearly demonstrates length contraction.

Sorry SL but this simply is not true. Tick rate (time dilation of clocks and muons) has been emperically demonstrated. With the muon internal clock dilated the delayed decay accounts for it making it to the surface; not a spatial contraction of distance.

Please do not disregard time dilation when computing distance. d = v * t. "d" is only valid when you compute using a clock at rest to measure time of a photon to travel the distance for example.

For anyother moving clock (even a muon) you must retain the dilated tick rate when computing distance.

i.e. At 0.866c tick rate (tr) = 0.5 compared to the clock at rest. Therefore:

d = v * t / tr and it can be seen if you retain the known physical condition of the muon internal clock that distance DID NOT CHANGE.

Aer,

Yes, the SR interpretation of rest frame - got it, know it

Lord Einstein himself

Well, discussing SR at all with you is pointless, isn't it? Since one SR result leads to another and so on, it's not valid because SR is unproven and so on... round and round we go.

Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder. Old Albert is tested all the time by better men than you or I to find chinks that may lead to some new physics.

Good luck with your "local ether" theories.

No one here has entertained the idea that along with gravity (remember, all gravity is, is the curvature of space according to GR - not some force as described by Newton), massive bodies produce a local ether in space. There are no experiments that I know of that conclude this assumption cannot be true.
people have done all kinds of test for ether, and last I checked, they were not in deep space when they did them.

and perhaps we will never fully unravel the mysteries of the universe, afterall we don't expect cows to understand electromagnetism, why should humans be able to know everything? I don't agree with that statement, but it is something to think about.

MacM:

Sorry SL but this simply is not true. Tick rate (time dilation of clocks (and muons) has been emperically demonstrated. With the muon inetrnal clock dialted the delayed decay accounts for it making it to the surface; not a spatial contraction of distance.

In the muons rest frame it lives 2.2us. I order for it to make it to the earths surface, it must percieve the distance (that we measure to be 6 to 10km) as vastly shortened.

You are so confused about SRT that I don't know how you even function.

And that light is isotropic and it's speed is independent of the motion of the source.

We know the assumptions based on the observations. However, what you and others fail to do is consider alternative explanations for such observations.

i.e. - RCM theory.

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/index.asp

Same observations, quite different result and cnsequences.

If there was a local ether, a universal ether, an ether that only exists a billion light years from us, it's effect would be seen in any number of experiments and astronomical phenomena.

Come on people. Think!

Well, discussing SR at all with you is pointless, isn't it? Since one SR result leads to another and so on, it's not valid because SR is unproven and so on... round and round we go.
Perhaps you are finally seeing the light. Many results of special relativity have not been in any way verified. They are just assumed to happen to explain the phenomenon tested (for the most part, SR experiments are a time dilation).


Clearly you have a chip on your shoulder. Old Albert is tested all the time by better men than you or I to find chinks that may lead to some new physics. No chip, I'd be just as happy with the verification of relativity as with the replacement of relativity with something else.


Good luck with your "local ether" theories.
"local ether" is not an idea that has been presented by myself. There have been other researchers that have introduced the idea. I found their research after comtemplating such a thing on my own (although I am not sure if I had vaguely heard of the idea long ago from somewhere - cannot remember).

Yea. Seen Curt's site. Nice. Good luck to him and all that.

If there was a local ether, a universal ether, an ether that only exists a billion light years from us, it's effect would be seen in any number of experiments and astronomical phenomena.

Come on people. Think! Let's see the astonomical phenomena that disproves the local ether idea. I know of no such argument presented anywhere.

Yea. Seen Curt's site. Nice. Good luck to him and all that. Who is Curt?

Aer:

Many results of special relativity have not been in any way verified. They are just assumed to happen to explain the phenomenon tested (for the most part, SR experiments are a time dilation).

Ha! This is insane! What's your definition of a test to verify something?

We have a theory, we see shit happen that is in accord with the theory, so we say the theory is accurate as far as our observations! If you have a theory that explains muon phenomena better that SR's predictions of dilation and contraction, then go for it! As it stands, you'll have to be better than the 23rd decimal place in accuracy because that's how good SR and GR are at predicting natural phenomena.

Have fun.

link (http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf)

Abstract. It is pointed out that the classical propagation model can be in accord with the Sagnac effect due
to earth’s rotational and orbital motions in the high-precision GPS (global positioning system) and interplanetaryradar,
if the reference frame of the classical propagation medium is endowed with a switchability
according to the location of the wave. Accordingly, it is postulated that, as in the obsolete theory, electromagnetic
waves propagate via a medium like the ether. However, the ether is not universal. It is proposed
that in the region under sufficient influence of the gravitydue to the earth, the sun, or another celestial
body, there forms a local ether, which in turn is stationary with respect to the gravitational potential of the
respective body. For earthbound and interplanetarypropagation, the medium is stationaryin a geocentric
and a heliocentric inertial frame, respectively. An electromagnetic wave propagates at a constant speed
with respect to the associated local ether, independent of the motions of source and receiver. Based on
this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide varietyof earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar
propagation phenomena are accounted for. Strong evidence of this new classical model is its consistent
account of the Sagnac effect due to earth’s motions among GPS, the intercontinental microwave link, and
the interplanetaryradar. Moreover, as examined within the present precision, this model is still in accord
with the Michelson–Morleyexp eriment. To test the local-ether propagation model, a one-way-link rotor
experiment is proposed.

Aer:

Let's see the astonomical phenomena that disproves the local ether idea. I know of no such argument presented anywhere

What kind of a scientist are you anyway? The burden of proof is always on the one making the new claim. You prove that something that no one has ever seen or detected in any slightest way, even accidentally, exists, then we'll talk.

And that in particle accelerators the effective mass (energy) increases according to SRT.

I'm glad you added "according to SRT" because it may well be that it seems so due to changing energy transfer efficiency at relavistic speeds and storage of potential energy in space behind the particle which makes it appear to have excess momentum when it is being stopped, since the energy catches up and adds push. Mass may never actually change which explains why accelerated particles do not become supermassive black holes. (Joking) But seriously they do not display a change in gravitational potential due to relative velocity.

Ha! This is insane! What's your definition of a test to verify something?

We have a theory, we see shit happen that is in accord with the theory, so we say the theory is accurate as far as our observations!
I still see MacM's water freezing/boiling theory has yet to be disproven and all experiments are in accord with his predictions :D

Aer, that's just embarrassingly dumb. Stop bringing it up.

You prove that something that no one has ever seen or detected in any slightest way, even accidentally, exists, then we'll talk.
I provided you with the actual work of one such individual who has worked on the idea with precise detail - how about you read his work, then we'll talk.

If there was a local ether, a universal ether, an ether that only exists a billion light years from us, it's effect would be seen in any number of experiments and astronomical phenomena.

Come on people. Think!

This assumption is totally unjustified. It is the same lame assumption mentality which leads to SRT and reciprocity.

Aer, that's just embarrassingly dumb. Stop bringing it up.And equally as dumb as the point you brought up - somewhere or somehow this analogy was lost on you.

I trashed that stupid analogy. Didn't you read it?

BTW nice link to the ether thing. Wish them all the best with that.

No one here has entertained the idea that along with gravity (remember, all gravity is, is the curvature of space according to GR - not some force as described by Newton), massive bodies produce a local ether in space. There are no experiments that I know of that conclude this assumption cannot be true.

If we entertain the idea of the local ether - we see that length contraction does not occur as neither does mutually observed time dilation. But it does offer an explaination for the time dilation that we've seen. And not only that, but it offers the explaination on the quantum level - not just some mumble jumble of relative velocities of macroscopic bodies.

We seem in complete agreement, except I am not into the quantum thing yet.

I trashed that stupid analogy. Didn't you read it?

BTW nice link to the ether thing. Wish them all the best with that.HA! I see you have no real counter argument. I am not claiming the local ether idea is correct - but I am neither claiming it to be incorrect as I have no evidence to make such a claim. Same applies to SR - no evidence to fully confirm it, no evidence to prove any of its results incorrect.

We seem in complete agreement, except I am not into the quantum thing yet. I never said quantum theory is 100% correct. I just said, the time dilation result is explained on the quantum level. There is a difference. SR cannot claim to explain time dilation on such a level.

I have entertained the idea that the stars are fixed on a glass sphere and the weather is caused by a big, bearded, blowhard in the sky. My theories don't address any real descrepancies in current thinking, just thought I'd entertain the ideas and then defend them like a rabid dog. Oh yeah. I have no inkilng of a shred of evidence or necessity to lead me to such conclusions except that I don't like Albert Einstein, that pretentious know-it-all.

HA! I see you have no real counter argument.

Aer, you really do sound just like MacM.

Now, to bring everything full circle. SR is non-intuitive, even for the most celebrated supporters of the theory. However, the local ether concepts does offer an intuitive explaination. Now which one sounds like the better theory?

Ha! You are defeated by your own rhetoric, innuendo, and fiat. Your unsupported arguments are unfounded and without any real physics. You Lose!!!

Aer, you really do sound just like MacM.
Except I point it out as I see it. MacM just makes claims that do not support his nonsense.

Now which one sounds like the better theory?

You've completely lost it.

Ha! You are defeated by your own rhetoric, innuendo, and fiat. Your unsupported arguments are unfounded and without any real physics. You Lose!!! ^ :m: :eek: ^

Aer, you are arguing circularly. You always say "if we assume SR is correct...". How do we know the time dilation that we observe is not some other effect and just stop mentioning SR altogether? It's only proof "if we assume SR is correct..." right?

I tire of this.

You would do well to stop referring these emperical tests as being SR and understand they only repesent a gamma function. This gama fucntion occurs equally in an absolute view as in a relative view. The differance is in the absolute view there is no reciprocity.

Considering there have never been any evidence of reicprocity and that physically it cannot be explained suggests we should be thinkking in absolute terms and not relative terms.

Relative velocity is created by motion. That is the physical acceleration of objects. The same relative velocity is generated if only one is accelerated from a comon rest frame or if both accelerate to some contribution level of the total relative veloicty.

That is why there is no differance between accumulated time of clocks co-moving and two clocks accelerated equally in opposite directions. Both cases are of the clocks having equal motion. One case has relative velocity and the other has none but the accumulated time on the clocks in both cases is the same and they remain synchronized.

SRT disagrees with this finding does it not?

You would do well to stop referring these emperical tests as being SR and understand they only repesent a gamma function.

What the fuck?

You've completely lost it.
You've completely lost the ability to debate. And you claim that I am resorting to rhetoric, innuendo, and fiat :D

Kind of ironic. Ok, lose the kind of.

Considering there have never been any evidence of reicprocity and that physically it cannot be explained suggests we should be thinkking in absolute terms and not relative terms.

Mac, you are the most confused being I know.

Debate? Is that what we're doing?

Fuck that. Bye.

I see that my statement:

I am not claiming the local ether idea is correct - but I am neither claiming it to be incorrect as I have no evidence to make such a claim. Same applies to SR - no evidence to fully confirm it, no evidence to prove any of its results incorrect.
was lost on you :D

Debate? Is that what we're doing?

Fuck that. Bye.

Debate: argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

Yeah, you did stop debating quite awhile ago as you lost all ability to reason and consider other proposals.

Woah there! I've never said SR is based on false assumptions! In fact, all the assumptions of SR are used. The only detail is: The assumptions are incomplete. What if one was to assume a local ether? We find a totally different explaination for time dilation to start with.

I was not putting words in your mouth. It is my statement that false assumptions are made. The assumption which leads to reciprocity is that gamma is a function of relative velocity and not velocity induced by accelerated motion.

That is two clocks accelerated and co-moving remains synchronized because they "Mutually Dilate" but have no relative velocity. The same two clocks accelerated equally but in opposite directions have identical accelerated induced motion and velocity in an absolute sense and have relative velocity but they too remain synchronized and there is no systemic time dilation recorded.

So the assumption that there is no absolute motion, simply because we don't sense it and the consequence of therefore believeing it is merely the relative velocity between two objects regardless of which one (or both) may have accelerated, that causes the reciprocity (failure) of SRT.

MacM, you wouldn't know what an assumption was even if you assumed to know.

You are talking about results of SR, not assumptions!

In the muons rest frame it lives 2.2us. I order for it to make it to the earths surface, it must percieve the distance (that we measure to be 6 to 10km) as vastly shortened.

You are so confused about SRT that I don't know how you even function.

No I am not confused about SRT. You have properly qualifed your presentation by including "Percieve". Others do not and assert an actual physical forshortening of spatial distance. That is a false concept and view.

I will point out once more that your "Perception" is a bad adjective since it asserts a visual illusion. The actuality is that it is purely a mathematical conclusion based on ignorance or disregard for the known tick rate of the clock and the better physics alternative would be to believe that the moving observer would see the same physical distance being traversed in less time or that he was traveling faster, not that he was closer.

Aer,

I am NOT considering any other proposals. What ever gave you the idea that I was? SR and GR are all there is for now and they are completely accurate as far as they have been tested.

Just because you and Mac don't like things that are non intuitive dosen't mean they're not true.

My only intention in any of this anti-SRT bullshit was to hopefully show you why you are completely wrong in your assesment of it. However, the titanium lining on your cranium prevents this.

You show no capitulation to reason. So, I give up. It's no loss to me. There are plenty of people out there who are genuinely interested in learning how the universe really works (me included) who might benefit from my meager knowledge (and vice versa).

You and Mac have only one goal - upsetting the apple cart. What a waste of time.

Mac,

Have you ever rerad "relativity" by AE? Nowhere does he refer to anything other than what one observer MEASURES (percieves) of another. NO WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have this maniacal fixation on "PHYSICAL REALITY" that no one can comprehend.

Aer,

I am NOT considering any other proposals. What ever gave you the idea that I was? SR and GR are all there is for now and they are completely accurate as far as they have been tested.

Just because you and Mac don't like things that are non intuitive dosen't mean they're not true.

My only intention in any of this anti-SRT bullshit was to hopefully show you why you are completely wrong in your assesment of it. However, the titanium lining on your cranium prevents this.

You show no capitulation to reason. So, I give up. It's no loss to me. There are plenty of people out there who are genuinely interested in learning how the universe really works (me included) who might benefit from my meager knowledge (and vice versa).

You and Mac have only one goal - upsetting the apple cart. What a waste of time.

Getting rotten apples out of the barrel saves the rest of the fruit. Just how do you justify clinging to untested, unobserved and unexplainable assertions of SRT over concepts which are in complete agreement with emperical data but do not have the "Counter Intuitive" bagage? (PS: I detest the term "Counter Intuitive", it is a smoke screen for "Physically Impossible".

Just how do you justify clinging to untested, unobserved and unexplainable assertions of SRT over concepts which are in complete agreement with emperical data but do not have the "Counter Intuitive" bagage?

Outright lie.

(PS: I detest the term "Counter Intuitive", it is a smoke screen for "Physically Impossible".

Then you are a backward child who needs special treatment.

What kind of a scientist are you anyway? The burden of proof is always on the one making the new claim. You prove that something that no one has ever seen or detected in any slightest way, even accidentally, exists, then we'll talk.

Surely you haven't forgotten "Reciprocity" when you make such statements have you? :D

I am NOT considering any other proposals. What ever gave you the idea that I was? SR and GR are all there is for now and they are completely accurate as far as they have been tested. This is your preogative. Why then are you participating in a discussion about considering alternatives to SR?


Just because you and Mac don't like things that are non intuitive dosen't mean they're not true. I never said they are definately not true! I've only pointed out that length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, and reciprocity have never been observed.


My only intention in any of this anti-SRT bullshit was to hopefully show you why you are completely wrong in your assesment of it. However, the titanium lining on your cranium prevents this. How can I be completely wrong in challenging a theory that has so many results that have not been confirmed? I am challenging it in the hopes of either fully proving it, or the alternative - disproving. NOTHING MORE - I have no ulterior motive.

No such thing as reciprocity as you state it. I've told you this a dozen times and you ignore it. You are a stubborn ass.

I never said quantum theory is 100% correct. I just said, the time dilation result is explained on the quantum level. There is a difference. SR cannot claim to explain time dilation on such a level.

I agree. I just didn't want to over reach since I can't comment on quantum issues.

This is your preogative. Why then are you participating in a discussion about considering alternatives to SR?

I wasn't you putz. This thread is called "SR Problem" not "Alternatives to SR".

Make that thread and I won't go anywhere near it. I wish you would. Really.

Just how do you justify clinging to untested, unobserved and unexplainable assertions of SRT over concepts which are in complete agreement with emperical data but do not have the "Counter Intuitive" bagage?

Outright lie.

Ha ha! A question is an outright lie, good one. I had a nice laugh.

Except I point it out as I see it. MacM just makes claims that do not support his nonsense.

I take exception to that. :D Please be specific.

I wasn't you putz. This thread is called "SR Problem" not "Alternatives to SR".

Make that thread and I won't go anywhere near it. I wish you would. Really. This thread brought up the issues of the relativity of simultaneity which lead to this discussion of alternative explainations. BECAUSE, I was asked - how else do you explain it.

You could have merely chosen to opt out of the thread at that point. However - that appears to be where you JUMPED INTO THE THREAD.

Irony hits again.

I take exception to that. :D Please be specific. "common rest frame" - I need not say more.

Aer:

How can I be completely wrong in challenging a theory that has so many results that have not been confirmed? I am challenging it in the hopes of either fully proving it, or the alternative - disproving. NOTHING MORE - I have no ulterior motive.

Now you see? This is the difference between you and us. You think you can do anything of the sort? That is the most arrogant stance I can imagine.

Are you a brilliant physicist with years of training and experience in relativistic theory and experiment? No? And you think that's not necessary to debunk or confirm SR? Of course not. Who needs training and experience. Common sense will get you through.

You and Mac and your kind are so far out of your depth yet you think you can PROVE or DISPROVE SR and or GR? That's fucking hilarious! If you said you were just playing with ideas and wanted to learn as much SR and GR as you could, then that's a different story. No, you want to be the ones who topple it or gloriously confirm it.

We, on the other hand, just hope to get the basics right so we understand a little about the way the universe works. You serious non-physicist non-scientist SR "workers" crack me up with your egocentrism.

No such thing as reciprocity as you state it. I've told you this a dozen times and you ignore it. You are a stubborn ass.

You are even more stuborn to ignore the link I have repeatedly posted from mathworld that shows you are incorrect in your denial regarding SRT's advocation of reciprocity.

We agree it does not exist. You just need to understand that SRT DOES advocate it then perhaps you might decide to join the winning side in this discussion.

Bye.

Now you see? This is the difference between you and us. You think you can do anything of the sort? That is the most arrogant stance I can imagine. I never said that it was myself who could do ANYTHING OF THE SORT. Have I presented any papers such as the likes of zanket and others? No. Have I pointed to other peoples research? Well, I just did - so yes.


Are you a brilliant physicist with years of training and experience in relativistic theory and experiment? No? And you think that's not necessary to debunk or confirm SR? Of course not. Who needs training and experience. Common sense will get you through. Ahh, I see. Only a special group of trained proffessionals are allowed to discuss new ideas within physics. Damn, I thought this was a forum for such discussion.



You and Mac and your kind are so far out of your depth yet you think you can PROVE or DISPROVE SR and or GR? Holy fucking shit! Where did I ever say that I was going to prove anything? I've said repeatedly - EXPERIMENTS CAN ONLY PROVE ANYTHING. No matter how many times you fudge numbers on a page - it is totally meaningless.


That's fucking hilarious! I agree! It's hilarious that you think I'd propose proving such a thing with my own two hands and a piece of paper!


If you said you were just playing with ideas and wanted to learn as much SR and GR as you could, then that's a different story. Oh but wait! I am playing with ideas and want to learn as much about why only SR and GR as presented are the only answer. See the slight difference?


No, you want to be the ones who topple it or gloriously confirm it. Wow - such a statement. I only want to see it happen, not necessarily by MYSELF. My god - you really do think that I see myself as king of the mountain, don't you? How sad.


We, on the other hand, just hope to get the basics right so we understand a little about the way the universe works. You serious non-physicist non-scientist SR "workers" crack me up with your egocentrism. Your misunderstanding of my positions never ceases to crack me up either!

Bye.Bye fool.

"common rest frame" - I need not say more.

Yes you need to say more. There is absolutely nothing wrong by stipulating a common rest frame. Do you disagree that two clocks accelerated from such a frame have the time dilated results which I have articulated? I hope not they match emperical data.

You and Mac and your kind are so far out of your depth yet you think you can PROVE or DISPROVE SR and or GR? That's fucking hilarious!

Actually all I have done is present the physics facts which none of your posts have rebutted.

1 - Is the clock in motion tick rate dilated or not?

2 - Does tick rate affect accumulated time on a clock measuring trip at a given velocity?

3 - Does accumulated time alter the result in the d = v * t calculation or not?

I do believe the correct physics answers to the above questions are all in the affirmative. That being the case your spatial contraction arguement just went out the window as a physical reality.

We, on the other hand, just hope to get the basics right so we understand a little about the way the universe works. You serious non-physicist non-scientist SR "workers" crack me up with your egocentrism.

Funny how you paint yourself in the classification as being a knowing physicist. You aren't. If you (or they) really want to get a correct view of the universe it is long over due that you stop protecting Einstien and start looking at alternatives.

Yes you need to say more. I already have in other threads.

There is absolutely nothing wrong by stipulating a common rest frame. Other than it is stupid.

Do you disagree that two clocks accelerated from such a frame have the time dilated results which I have articulated? Yes I do.

I hope not they match emperical data. Get emperical results from an experiment in which the Earth is not the "common rest frame" - then we'll talk.

MacM, you wouldn't know what an assumption was even if you assumed to know.

You are talking about results of SR, not assumptions!

I don't know where you have been but you are incorrect.

Maybe you don't know where I've been because you have your head up your ass.

Outright lie.

Then you are uneducated in physics and should not be pretending on this forum.

Then you are a backward child who needs special treatment.

And you seem to have an inflated ego as to your special place in all this. You don't need to respond because others smarter than all of us have said so. OK I see you basis. Baa, baa. baaaah.

What the fuck?

Please post or name one emperical experiment that demonstrated anything more than a one way gamma function.

Mac,

Have you ever rerad "relativity" by AE? Nowhere does he refer to anything other than what one observer MEASURES (percieves) of another. NO WHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You have this maniacal fixation on "PHYSICAL REALITY" that no one can comprehend.

I repeat for you once more. I do not argue with you regarding "Perception" It is when it is claimed that distance IS shorter, etc., that I enter the discussion.

Surely you have seen James R and others repeatedly claim the physical reality of these illusions of motions.

You yourself in this thread asserted that length contradction had been demonstrated by the fact the muon makes it to the surface. That claim requires accepting physical contraction of space. NOt the illlusion of contraction.

I have repeatedly pointed out that it IS an illusion caused by disregarding the known physical dilated condition of the clock in motion. You now argue it is perception but wqant to continue to claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

You should make up your mind. I am either right that it is an illusion or it isn't. Do not continue to claim it is an illusion and that because I claim it is an illusion I don't know what I'm talking about. That is shear nonsense

Do you accept that muons in their rest frame only live 2.2us on average? You do know what I mean by rest frame, right?

You bet I agree and certainly I know.

You however, don't seem to realize that that does not mean distance changed. In fact to make that assumption defies physics. And picks the least supportable arguement even if you were to accept disreagarding the dilated tick rate of the clock in motion.

The correct physics view would be that the clock in motion would result in a calculation of higher velocity, not contracted space.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Do you disagree that two clocks accelerated from such a frame have the time dilated results which I have articulated? ”

Yes I do.


This appears to be the only thing in your post that merits any response. The rest is HS.

Now be specific.

A and B clocks have a relative velocity of 0.866c. What do you claim is the respective or comparative tick rate of the clocks.

Maybe you don't know where I've been because you have your head up your ass.

You know what. I have been treating you lightly since we seem to have a very common view of things. But you are starting to piss me off. You are an egotistical jackass.

So go fuck yourself. Twit.

Yes, the point was to test their faith - it is as strong as ever as suspected :D (One only needs to read above). BTW - I didn't want to post the problem - THEY ASKED FOR IT.
I don't remember asking you to do anything, IIRC.

And how does doing a problem correspond to faith? You saw something which you claimed to be nonsense (failing to explain why), which is a rather trivial occurence in relativity theory.

The correct physics view would be that the clock in motion would result in a calculation of higher velocity, not contracted space.

Want to know what is correct physics ?

"The first clear example of time dilation was provided over fifty years ago by an experiment detecting muons. These particles are produced at the outer edge of our atmosphere by incoming cosmic rays hitting the first traces of air. They are unstable particles, with a "half-life" of 1.5 microseconds (1.5 millionths of a second), which means that if at a given time you have 100 of them, 1.5 microseconds later you will have about 50, 1.5 microseconds after that 25, and so on. Anyway, they are constantly being produced many miles up, and there is a constant rain of them towards the surface of the earth, moving at very close to the speed of light. In 1941, a detector placed near the top of Mount Washington (at 6000 feet above sea level) measured about 570 muons per hour coming in. Now these muons are raining down from above, but dying as they fall, so if we move the detector to a lower altitude we expect it to detect fewer muons because a fraction of those that came down past the 6000 foot level will die before they get to a lower altitude detector. Approximating their speed by that of light, they are raining down at 186,300 miles per second, which turns out to be, conveniently, about 1,000 feet per microsecond. Thus they should reach the 4500 foot level 1.5 microseconds after passing the 6000 foot level, so, if half of them die off in 1.5 microseconds, as claimed above, we should only expect to register about 570/2 = 285 per hour with the same detector at this level. Dropping another 1500 feet, to the 3000 foot level, we expect about 280/2 = 140 per hour, at 1500 feet about 70 per hour, and at ground level about 35 per hour. (We have rounded off some figures a bit, but this is reasonably close to the expected value.)

To summarize: given the known rate at which these raining-down unstable muons decay, and given that 570 per hour hit a detector near the top of Mount Washington, we only expect about 35 per hour to survive down to sea level. In fact, when the detector was brought down to sea level, it detected about 400 per hour! How did they survive? The reason they didn't decay is that in their frame of reference, much less time had passed. Their actual speed is about 0.994c, corresponding to a time dilation factor of about 9, so in the 6 microsecond trip from the top of Mount Washington to sea level, their clocks register only 6/9 = 0.67 microseconds. In this period of time, only about one-quarter of them decay.

What does this look like from the muon's point of view? How do they manage to get so far in so little time? To them, Mount Washington and the earth's surface are approaching at 0.994c, or about 1,000 feet per microsecond. But in the 0.67 micro-seconds it takes them to get to sea level, it would seem that to them sea level could only get 670 feet closer, so how could they travel the whole 6000 feet from the top of Mount Washington? The answer is the Fitzgerald contraction---to them Mount Washington is squashed in a vertical direction (the direction of motion) by a factor of 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²), the same as the time dilation factor, which for the muons is 9. So, to the muons, Mount Washington is only 670 feet high---this is why they can get down it so fast! "

- http://landau1.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/srelwhat.html

I've a lot more I could share but I choose not to :D

I'm still looking over experiments and building off them. I would be happy with either of the following: all results of relativity are fully proved by experiment OR a result of relativity is shown to be erroneous thus requiring the amending of relativity.
But that's an entirely silly demand! Of course, all the predictions of relativity will never be "fully proved". Physics doesn't work that way.

However, to a very high degree, the predictions of relativity theory correlate with the real world. Your choice to dismiss the theory on the basis of a (in your opinion) non-directly proven consequence (which makes interpreting predictions easier) is entirely spurious.

We seem in complete agreement, except I am not into the quantum thing yet.
A big fucking warning bell should be going off somewhere, right now.

Holy fucking shit! Where did I ever say that I was going to prove anything? I've said repeatedly - EXPERIMENTS CAN ONLY PROVE ANYTHING. No matter how many times you fudge numbers on a page - it is totally meaningless.

No. This view of how physics works is wrong. Experiments are corroboration if falling out favourably and falsification if not. What they are not, is proof.

I am not claiming the local ether idea is correct - but I am neither claiming it to be incorrect as I have no evidence to make such a claim. Same applies to SR - no evidence to fully confirm it, no evidence to prove any of its results incorrect.

We stand with two masses of evidence: The thousands of experiments done in which relativity theory has succesfully predicted the results and the tiny bit of experiments done in which some alternative theory has succesfully predicted the results.

I.e. huge corroboration of relativity theory, almost none for alternative theories.

Now, you say that there's nothing that disproves either of these, and that therefore they should be on equal footing. This is a silly view point, because that puts any untested theory on equal footing with a tremendously succesfull one. The experiments corroborating relativity can be seen as a thousand experiments to prove relativity theory wrong, with nearly nothing coming from it, and a few experiments debunking various alternative views (the ether springs to mind), but not whatever pet theory is being proposed.

In order for an alternative theory to be considered given this amount of evidence, the theory will have to

A) Predict the results of relativity in the (key) experiments above to within a satisfying degree, and
B1) Make a testable prediction in which the prediction varies greatly enough from relativity theory to be considered a test between them, or
B2) Make a testable prediction where relativity doesn't apply, and
C) Have B1 and B2 repeatedly fall out in the new theory's favour.

Do you understand why we don't consider your claim of str's prediction of length contraction to be of much value, given this?

A big fucking warning bell should be going off somewhere, right now.

"newtonian quantum reality" hits sciforums soon...

I don't remember asking you to do anything, IIRC. You don't remember correctly.

From this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47753&page=4&pp=20)


If you wish to tweak your SR skills, I can come up with a SR problem that I like a lot - I'll have to take a little bit of time to dig it out of my memory though.

But only if you are interested of course.

I'm interested!
So am I.


And how does doing a problem correspond to faith? You saw something which you claimed to be nonsense (failing to explain why), which is a rather trivial occurence in relativity theory. Trivial nonsense required by SR - agreed.

But that's an entirely silly demand! Of course, all the predictions of relativity will never be "fully proved". Physics doesn't work that way.

You are very confused - there are NOT AN INFINITE number of results predicted by special relativity. By results, I am refering to the following (don't get results of a story problem confused with results of a theory - there is a slight difference that appears to be lost on you). Here are the following results of special relativity:

time dilation - observed.
length contraction - not observed.
relativity of simultanity - not observed.
reciprocity (aka mutual time dilation - not MacM reciprocity) - not observed.

A big fucking warning bell should be going off somewhere, right now.
HA! Except I am in complete disagreement with MacM. Well, he seems to agree with me saying that the results of SR have not been fully observed. I've never said this means that SR is wrong - just that it could be wrong. We don't know enough about the universe right now to make that judgement. However, MacM thinks he knows enough about the universe to say that SR is flat out wrong - that isn't so!

No. This view of how physics works is wrong. Experiments are corroboration if falling out favourably and falsification if not. What they are not, is proof.
What kind of scientist do you call yourself? Experiments are the only proof. SR was developed to explain why Earth did not appear to be moving in an ether. SR then made other predictions that needed to be verified. The only prediction verified is time dilation.

Now, you say that there's nothing that disproves either of these, and that therefore they should be on equal footing. Woah there - I only said that the possibility shouldn't be ruled out as you have just done! I never said they should be given an equal footing (I am assuming you mean here taught in physics classes?). That is just rediculous - any new theory that comes along shouldn't be put on equal footing as with the established theory. But what we have here is a need to verify that SR is actually correct. This is something you cannot do with any of the SR experiments done to date.

Now you may want to stop putting garbage words in my mouth. Unless you can provide an experiment that does any one of the following, there is nothing to discuss:

observes length contraction
observes the relativity of simultaneity
observes reciprocity (mutual time dilation)
disproves a local ether concept

You don't remember correctly.

From this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47753&page=4&pp=20)

Ah, ok. Fair enough.

Trivial nonsense required by SR - agreed.
That's not what I said. I said that something you consider nonsense (with no particular justification) is a trivial occurence in str.

You are very confused - there are NOT AN INFINITE number of results predicted by special relativity. By results, I am refering to the following (don't get results of a story problem confused with results of a theory - there is a slight difference that appears to be lost on you). Here are the following results of special relativity:

time dilation - observed.
length contraction - not observed.
relativity of simultanity - not observed.
reciprocity (aka mutual time dilation - not MacM reciprocity) - not observed.
These choices of what "results" constitute are arbitrary. I see relativity theory applied successfully everywhere, and if, say, length contraction remains to be directly tested (according to your standards of experimental proof) I don't really care, because that claim is not seperable from the other parts of str. In that respect, every experiment in which str gives good predictions of the outcome is a proof of length contraction.

For instance, I consider the muon experiment to show length contraction. You don't, because there are alternative explanations, you say, and it's a calculation based on time dilation. But there are alternative explanations to everything, so, given the success of str elsewhere, and the invariance of light speed (which determines length), the parsimonious explanation is length contraction.

If you feel that you require an experiment in which you measure a moving object directly, then I really can't help you. By far the majority of evidence in all of science is indirect.

These choices of what "results" constitute are arbitrary. I see relativity theory applied successfully everywhere, and if, say, length contraction remains to be directly tested (according to your standards of experimental proof) I don't really care, because that claim is not seperable from the other parts of str. In that respect, every experiment in which str gives good predictions of the outcome is a proof of length contraction. You are truely dilusional. Most experiments are just a verification that time dilation occurs or are a test of the postulates of SR. Now, I never said time dilation didn't occur, nor that the postulates of SR are incorrect. Hell, I never even said that SR was incorrect - I only said that some of the results have not been verified. And they are neither arbitrary! I tried to include all of the fundamental results of SR - did I leave any out? If I didn't leave any out, how are these results arbitrary? If I did leave any out, please point them out as I've been overlooking them.

Perhaps you need to have a good look here (http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf) if you think that time dilation is a full proof of special relativity. I posted this earlier, but perhaps you overlooked it as it did not conform to your ideas on SR.

Abstract. It is pointed out that the classical propagation model can be in accord with the Sagnac effect due
to earth’s rotational and orbital motions in the high-precision GPS (global positioning system) and interplanetaryradar,
if the reference frame of the classical propagation medium is endowed with a switchability
according to the location of the wave. Accordingly, it is postulated that, as in the obsolete theory, electromagnetic
waves propagate via a medium like the ether. However, the ether is not universal. It is proposed
that in the region under sufficient influence of the gravitydue to the earth, the sun, or another celestial
body, there forms a local ether, which in turn is stationary with respect to the gravitational potential of the
respective body. For earthbound and interplanetarypropagation, the medium is stationaryin a geocentric
and a heliocentric inertial frame, respectively. An electromagnetic wave propagates at a constant speed
with respect to the associated local ether, independent of the motions of source and receiver. Based on
this local-ether model of wave propagation, a wide varietyof earthbound, interplanetary, and interstellar
propagation phenomena are accounted for. Strong evidence of this new classical model is its consistent
account of the Sagnac effect due to earth’s motions among GPS, the intercontinental microwave link, and
the interplanetaryradar. Moreover, as examined within the present precision, this model is still in accord
with the Michelson–Morleyexp eriment. To test the local-ether propagation model, a one-way-link rotor
experiment is proposed.

What kind of scientist do you call yourself? Experiments are the only proof.

No. Experiments tell us how the universe behaves. This can be used to dismiss theories if their predictions do not match how the universe behaves to a satisfying degree, or to corroborate them if they do. What experiments cannot do, is prove the correctness of theories. No amount of evidence can ever prove a physical theory. What it can do is instill a high degree of confidence in the theory.

This is why I see asking for proof of length contraction as if it were a seperate claim of str than time dilation as fundamentally silly. Yes, it would be another experimental test of str, but we have so many of those! Furthermore, as superluminal has said, such a test would probably be extremely difficult to do, due to the high energies needed to accelerate something of discernible length to relativistic speeds.

Now, do you see the experimental basis of relativity theory as being convincing or not?

If yes, do you think that we are then justified in using the equations of relativity theory as a description of the universe?

If yes, why do you then require extra proof of length contraction?

Woah there - I only said that the possibility shouldn't be ruled out as you have just done! I never said they should be given an equal footing (I am assuming you mean here taught in physics classes?). That is just rediculous - any new theory that comes along shouldn't be put on equal footing as with the established theory. But what we have here is a need to verify that SR is actually correct. This is something you cannot do with any of the SR experiments done to date.
I never said that other explanations should be ruled out. And, as you should know, no amount of experiments can prove a theory correct.

No. Experiments tell us how the universe behaves. This can be used to dismiss theories if their predictions do not match how the universe behaves to a satisfying degree, or to corroborate them if they do. What experiments cannot do, is prove the correctness of theories.
OMFG - That is the entire point of experiments. What reality do you live in?

I never said that other explanations should be ruled out. And, as you should know, no amount of experiments can prove a theory correct. Well you seem to accept SR without any reservations AND you are telling me that I should do the same. I never told you SR was incorrect - do not lump me with the cranks that appear here from time to time or constantly as is the case of MacM and Geist. Perhaps it would be justified to accept SR without reservations if the 3 results I've mentioned have all been observed. The 3 results being: length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, reciprocity (mutual time dilation).

OMFG - That is the entire point of experiments. What reality do you live in?
Aer, I'm not going to have to explain the scientific method or the philosophy of science to you, am I?

Ok. Let's assume that experiment prove theories correct.

Here a theory: Gravity works because I'm holding my breath.

Here is the experiment journal:
16.48:10 : funkstar holds breath.
16.48:11 : Rock falls to Earth.
16.48:12 : funkstar releases breath.

As you can see, the experiments prove my theory.

Aer, I'm not going to have to explain the scientific method or the philosophy of science to you, am I?

The problem is, you are claiming one verified result of a theory (time dilation) proves the theory is correct, even though the other results (length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, and reciprocity) have never been verified. Again - I AM NOT SAYING ANY EXPERIMENTS HAVE DISPROVEN SPECIAL RELATIVITY. Good God!

Scientific Method: Systematic approach of observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing and hypothesis evaluation that forms the basis for modern science.

What part of only verifying time dilation can be considered a "systematic approach" towards verifying SR?

You know what. I have been treating you lightly since we seem to have a very common view of things. But you are starting to piss me off. You are an egotistical jackass.

So go fuck yourself. Twit.
Please MacM, don't hold back - tell me how you really feel.

The problem is, you are claiming one verified result of a theory (time dilation) proves the theory is correct, even though the other results (length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, and reciprocity) have never been verified. Again - I AM NOT SAYING ANY EXPERIMENTS HAVE DISPROVEN SPECIAL RELATIVITY. Good God!

No, I'm not saying that time dilation proves str correct. I would never do that, because the idea of experiments proving theoretical physics correct (in the sense of truth) is a non sequitur.

However, since length contraction is a consequence of str, and str is corroborated in the experimental literature through the last 100 years, I'm saying that length contraction is the parsimonious explanation. There's no reason to assume that length contraction isn't real, and every reason to assume that it is.

Scientific Method: Systematic approach of observation, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing and hypothesis evaluation that forms the basis for modern science.

What part of only verifying time dilation can be considered a "systematic approach" towards verifying SR?
Who says we're only verifying time dilation? I say that the muon experiment shows length contraction is real! Length is defined from time, remember?

Now, do you agree that the Lorentz transform equations are corroborated to a high degree of confidence in the experiments pertaining to str, or not? Why are you so occupied with the particular invariant of length contraction?


Also, do you have an answer to why the experiment I gave doesn't prove that gravity work because I hold my breath?

Who says we're only verifying time dilation? Let's see some other verification.


I say that the muon experiment shows length contraction is real! Length is defined from time, remember?
Is this the best you've got? I've provided you with a link that explains time dilation differently than does SR. In that case, the muon experiment would be fully explained without length contraction. Do you see now how length contraction has never been truely observed? It is only assumed to occur to explain time dilation according to SR's explaination!


Now, do you agree that the Lorentz transform equations are corroborated to a high degree of confidence in the experiments pertaining to str, or not? I will only agree that the Lorentz transform predicts the accurate time dilation. And as I've pointed out, this same accurate prediction of time dilatation can be obtained without the lorentz transformations and without SR as it is currently defined. Am I saying the alternate explaination is the correct one? No - but there has not been an experiment to date that can disprove it just as there has not been an experiment to date that can disprove SR.


Why are you so occupied with the particular invariant of length contraction? I am not. I am occupied by the relativity of simultaneity and reciprocity as well. Please tell me, what other fundamental results are there in SR? We have time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, and reciprocity. I may be leaving some out, so what are they?



Also, do you have an answer to why the experiment I gave doesn't prove that gravity work because I hold my breath? That is the most retarded thing I've read on this forum in a couple of days, minus a couple MacM posts.

Aer,

there is a question for you in 'that crazy velocity history thingy' thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=47791

Aer,

there is a question for you in 'that crazy velocity history thingy' thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=47791

Why don't you try to do a little research on your own, if you look hard enough and read a little bit, you'll find a link in this thread that offers the alternate explaination. I am assuming you can read? I need not answer to every one of your little petty needs in every thread, especially when that topic has already been covered here. Just in case you don't want to read this entire thread, read here (http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf). And I do not endorse the contents of that link as "correct physics" any more than I would endorse SR. Let's just clear that up right now.

I am not. I am occupied by the relativity of simultaneity and reciprocity as well. Please tell me, what other fundamental results are there in SR? We have time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, and reciprocity. I may be leaving some out, so what are they?

What about the mass-energy relation, seeing as this is the 9th of august?

That is the most retarded thing I've read on this forum in a couple of days, minus a couple MacM posts.
Why, thank you. A physicist I know uses it as an example on what and does not constitutes "proof" in physics, when he lectured on physics to high school students as part of a small physics drive for his (and my) university. They'd usually have the same response.

What about the mass-energy relation, seeing as this is the 9th of august?

OK - we can add mass-energy relation to the list of verified results. Though, I thought we were strictly talking about the Lorentz transformations. How does one derive the mass-energy relation?

Why, thank you. A physicist I know uses it as an example on what [does] and does not constitutes "proof" in physics, when he lectured on physics to high school students as part of a small physics drive for his (and my) university. They'd usually have the same response. OK - a dumbed down example for high school students. What does this have to do with the results of SR? Your (his?) holding breath theory has no value - if you think it does, that is your preogative and you can go about proving it anyway you wish. No one will pay any attention though.

Why don't you try to do a little research on your own, if you look hard enough and read a little bit, you'll find a link in this thread that offers the alternate explaination. I am assuming you can read? I need not answer to every one of your little petty needs in every thread, especially when that topic has already been covered here. Just in case you don't want to read this entire thread, read here (http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1a.pdf). And I do not endorse the contents of that link as "correct physics" any more than I would endorse SR. Let's jus