I've been reading some old posts, and came across Superluminal's experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation. I see it was started about three months ago. So have you done (or started doing) the experiment yet? I ntoice that one problem he was having was deciding whether the mutual observed time dilation would be equal (reciprocal), because one frame was non-inertial, and the other wasn't (as in the original design), or at least didn't have the same acceleration as the first one (as in the modified design later). I don't know whether you've solved it, but if you place both the clocks on the circumference, then their accelerations will be equal, thus making the dilation equal, no matter what, and, there will still be a relative velocity, whose magnitude comes out to be,

v = 2rωsin(φ/2)

Where ω is the angular speed, and φ is the angular difference between the radius vectors of C1 and C2. Of course, v would be maximum (2rω ) when φ=π. Which makes it easier from the experiment point of view too, since there would be more balance when C1 and C2 are placed at opposite ends. I don't know anything much about electronics, and so, can't say whether this will be very feasible. But I theoretically, this is better because the relative velocity would be greater in this model than the earlier one. A difference of rω to be exact. As to how to put this into practice, comments, anyone?

I've been reading some old posts, and came across Superluminal's experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation. I see it was started about three months ago. So have you done (or started doing) the experiment yet? I ntoice that one problem he was having was deciding whether the mutual observed time dilation would be equal (reciprocal), because one frame was non-inertial, and the other wasn't (as in the original design), or at least didn't have the same acceleration as the first one (as in the modified design later). I don't know whether you've solved it, but if you place both the clocks on the circumference, then their accelerations will be equal, thus making the dilation equal, no matter what, and, there will still be a relative velocity, whose magnitude comes out to be,

v = 2rωsin(φ/2)

Where ω is the angular speed, and φ is the angular difference between the radius vectors of C1 and C2. Of course, v would be maximum (2rω ) when φ=π. Which makes it easier from the experiment point of view too, since there would be more balance when C1 and C2 are placed at opposite ends. I don't know anything much about electronics, and so, can't say whether this will be very feasible. But I theoretically, this is better because the relative velocity would be greater in this model than the earlier one. A difference of rω to be exact. As to how to put this into practice, comments, anyone?

I won't speak for SL but I believe he concluded his experiment would be a failure and has given up on SRT debates. :D

I'll only note that "Mutual Dilation" is not being contested. It is "Reciprocity" that he sought to prove and is contested.

Look at the title of SL's thread! It says 'mutual observed time dilation'

Look at the title of SL's thread! It says 'mutual observed time dilation' That is reciprocity. Mutual Dilation is a term MacM made up with his 3 reference frames.

Look at the title of SL's thread! It says 'mutual observed time dilation'

Read the thread which prompted SL to starat that thread and read the discussions in the thread. SL wrongfully termed reciprocity as being "Mutual Dilation".

That is reciprocity. Mutual Dilation is a term MacM made up with his 3 reference frames.

Sorry AER but you are grossly mistaken. MacM has not made up the term reciprocity. It is inherent and advocated by SRT. I show why reciprocity is false by using three frames.

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

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

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

Sorry AER but you are grossly mistaken. MacM has not made up the term reciprocity. It is inherent and advocated by SRT. I show why reciprocity is false by using three frames. I never said you made up the term reciprocity. But you are the first person I've ever seen say "mutual dilation" so in my world, you made up that term.

I never said you made up the term reciprocity. But you are the first person I've ever seen say "mutual dilation" so in my world, you made up that term.

I may be the first person you have seen use it but I certainly didn't make it up. Mutual Dilation differs from Reciprocity in that MD means both slow equally and hence you would not record any time dilation between two such clocks, although they both would tick different than a third clock which was at rest monitoring them.

This is represented by a case of co-moving particles for example. Two muons approaching earth, etc.

Reciprocity is an SRT term and is the predicitions that clock A runs slower than clock B at the same time as clock B runs slow than clock A.

Okay, I don't see what's wrong in using the term mutual dilation. Even someone who sees it for the first time (like me) will be able to understand what it means.

MacM:

I won't speak for SL but I believe he concluded his experiment would be a failure and has given up on SRT debates.

I'll only note that "Mutual Dilation" is not being contested. It is "Reciprocity" that he sought to prove and is contested.

MacM's first statement is correct. After reviewing this with members here and in other forums, the consensus was that the non-inertial nature of the experiment would not test what we were looking for, i.e. SRT's prediction of Mutual Observed Dilation-MOD (whatever you want to call it), under inertial conditions.

However, his second statement is, I believe, incorrect.

The experiment was intended to demonstrate the "I say your clock is dilated, while you say my clock is dilated" effect. I researched this, including contacting NASA and several universities. To my amazement, this apparently simple test has never been explicitly carried out, although all agreed that it must happen.

Whatever you wish to call it (Mutual Observed Dilation-MOD) that is all I was looking for and that is stated explicitly in the experiment description - The "I say your clock is dilated, while you say my clock is dilated" effect".

I am certain that MacM feels SRT requires a "physical" dilation such that both clocks "simultaneously" and "physically" each read less than the other, which would indeed be nonsense (and believes that was what I was looking for!?). The fact that in my rest frame I measure your clock to be running slow and from your rest frame you measure my clock to be running slow is an indication that we occupy very different spacetime coordinate frames and is resolved easily with a spacetime diagram. Space and time are different for each of us.

The only statements you can make regarding both clocks, that have any coherent "physical" meaning wrt each other, is when they are both in the same frame, and then there will be no ambiguity.

Just my humble opinion of course. Have fun with it.

I am certain that MacM feels SRT requires a "physical" dilation such that both clocks "simultaneously" and "physically" each read less than the other, which would indeed be nonsense (and believes that was what I was looking for!?). The fact that in my rest frame I measure your clock to be running slow and from your rest frame you measure my clock to be running slow is an indication that we occupy very different spacetime coordinate frames and is resolved easily with a spacetime diagram. Space and time are different for each of us. Nail meet head. This is precisely where MacM's logic fails. He attempts to superimpose his absolute nature of space-time onto special relativity.

Rosnet,

I think the problem is that no matter where you place the clocks in a rotating frame, they are never inertial, and that is all SR deals with - uniform motion. You would clearly be testing some aspect of SR but modified by GR somehow? I'm not a physicist and can't reconcile the non-inertial effects such that it would yield a significant result regarding MOD.

Any physicists out there want to weigh in?

Aer,

Nail meet head.

Yes. I was involved in debates of this sort with Mac and others for months and now have moved on to the simpler task of debating religion. :D :m:

I was involved in debates of this sort with Mac and others for months and now have moved on to the simpler task of debating religion. :D :m:

My boss just asked me why I was laughing...thanks :D

Rosnet,

I think the problem is that no matter where you place the clocks in a rotating frame, they are never inertial, and that is all SR deals with - uniform motion. You would clearly be testing some aspect of SR but modified by GR somehow? I'm not a physicist and can't reconcile the non-inertial effects such that it would yield a significant result regarding MOD.

Any physicists out there want to weigh in? I would have to look at your setup - maybe I'll dig it up later. But what specifically are you saying is the source of the problem? Is the problem anything to do with the gravitional field or is it a problem with considering orbiting clocks in general (that is, assume a vaccum).

You mean the problem with the experiment itself? The clocks are not in an inertial frame as SR requires. They experience constant acceleration and a changing velocity vector (duh!). We all agreed that this, therefore, would be an invalid test and would not show mutual dialtion.

Remember, the clocks are not orbiting. They are under a strong continuous centripetal acceleration. Gravity has nothing to do with it since both clocks are at the same point in the gravity well.

Aer, you should look at the setup:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46454

You mean the problem with the experiment itself? The clocks are not in an inertial frame as SR requires. They experience constant acceleration and a changing velocity vector (duh!). We all agreed that this, therefore, would be an invalid test and would not show mutual dialtion.

Remember, the clocks are not orbiting. They are under a strong continuous centripetal acceleration. Gravity has nothing to do with it since both clocks are at the same point in the gravity well. I've never seen your setup, so I had no basis to make assumptions - I was just throwing out ideas. Anyway, I'll take a look.

Nail meet head. This is precisely where MacM's logic fails. He attempts to superimpose his absolute nature of space-time onto special relativity.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Mutual Dilation IS NOT Reciprocity. In mutual dilation each dilates equally and there is no systemic measureable time dilation between such clocks. That is easy to demonstrate and has been observed numerous times. Co-moving muons for example.

Reciprocity is not my invention and I have not put my interpretation on it. It is a fact inherent and advocated by SRT where each clock runs slower (is time dilated) relative to the other and it is indeed total nonsense.


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

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

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

This condition is brought about by the false idea that all inertial motion is at an equivelent rest. (That is to assume no absolutes exist). In such a case each assumes to be at rest and all motion is relagated to the other as well as all relavistic affects.

Since each is inertial and each assumes an equal rest reciprocity is the result.

The facts are and emperical data supports the fact that all inertial motion is not equivelent. That is relative velocity between clocks may be comprised of each having some component inertial motion relative to their initial common inertial rest and in such cases the time dilation is not based on total relative velocity and reciprocity does not occur.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Mutual Dilation IS NOT Reciprocity. My post did not mention Mutual Dilation or Reciprocity! Sorry, try again.

My post did not mention Mutual Dilation or Reciprocity! Sorry, try again.

Well perhaps on a technicality you can say this but to do so you are attempting to dodge the bullet since your post referenced a post by SL which is a discussion of those issues and you simply make the false claim that I somehow miss the point by assuming an absolute motion. etc.

Sorry, for the benefit of others reading your post I leave my posted response stand.

Well perhaps on a technicality you can say this but to do so you are attempting to dodge the bullet since your post referenced a post by SL which is a discussion of those issues and you simply make the false claim that I somehow miss the point by assuming an absolute motion. etc.

Sorry, for the benefit of others reading your post I leave my posted response stand. Regardless of what you think your theory is (absolute motion or not), you cannot superimpose your concepts into a special relativity interpretation and call it something like the "correct version of relativity". Your version is contrary to the postulates of special relavity and as such your entire argument is flawed.

Regardless of what you think your theory is (absolute motion or not), you cannot superimpose your concepts into a special relativity interpretation and call it something like the "correct version of relativity". Your version is contrary to the postulates of special relavity and as such your entire argument is flawed.

Actually this is an incorrect assumption on your part. Valid physics with standing in my calculations and applications, the solution is not that "I must be in error somewhere" but that "The postulates must be in error somewhere".

Now please detail any physical or mathematical errors on my part.

Actually this is an incorrect assumption on your part. Valid physics with standing in my calculations and applications, the solution is not that "I must be in error somewhere" but that "The postulates must be in error somewhere".

Now please detail any physical or mathematical errors on my part. It is NOT an assumption on my part. I have personally derived the equations for special relativity as well as the equations for another theory that only uses time-dilation, not length contraction or reciprocity. I'm not going to post that derivation here, but it is needless to say that I know a little bit more than just assumptions.

what this all means is that SRT whilst a very valuable theory is essentially unfalsifiable. The question of MOD is unfalsifiable due to the lack of simultaneity. The lack of simultaneity is due to the invariant nature of light speed.......So in essence it is the invariance factor that forces non-simultaneity and MOD upon us all.
The invariance factor apparently has been proven however and the rest of the theory appears to be the outcome of this scientific "fact".

The question really is :"if MOD is unable to be proven and if Non-simultaneity is unable to be proven does this make SRT Unfalsifiable. Can this be considered to be a weakness in the theory?

I have come to the conclusion that the very nature of SRT requires the invalidation of invariance of speed of light to invaidate SRT. [I don't see this happening for quite a while]

It is NOT an assumption on my part. I have personally derived the equations for special relativity as well as the equations for another theory that only uses time-dilation, not length contraction or reciprocity. I'm not going to post that derivation here, but it is needless to say that I know a little bit more than just assumptions.

Well this is a most interesting post. I would like to have some PM conversations at your discretion. Seems we may see things much a like after all. I to agree with gamma but not reciprocity, spatial length contraction (note 1).

What is you take on the VAF.?

Note 1: I deliberately specify "Spatial Length Contraction" in that I find reason to believe in contraction of physical objects but of space only with an inverse c^2 relationship. That is spatial contraction may exist in a very minor way but nothing near the magnitude of dimensional contraction of a relavistic rocket for example.

what this all means is that SRT whilst a very valuable theory is essentially unfalsifiable. The question of MOD is unfalsifiable due to the lack of simultaneity. The lack of simultaneity is due to the invariant nature of light speed.......So in essence it is the invariance factor that forces non-simultaneity and MOD upon us all.
The invariance factor apparently has been proven however and the rest of the theory appears to be the outcome of this scientific "fact".

The question really is :"if MOD is unable to be proven and if Non-simultaneity is unable to be proven does this make SRT Unfalsifiable. Can this be considered to be a weakness in the theory?

I have come to the conclusion that the very nature of SRT requires the invalidation of invariance of speed of light to invaidate SRT. [I don't see this happening for quite a while]

QQ, I take exception to your position. I believe emperical data already falsifies SRT. It does not however, explain why the postulates are false or are mis-interpretations of observations.

Simultaneity is not a stumbling block either in that it can be calculated and taken into consideration.

I believe I understand why the invariance postulate is flawed but it is not because light isn't measured invariant. But that is another subject.

What is you take on the VAF.?
I started to read it but couldn't determine to my satisfaction what frame you were referring to and when so I stopped reading it.

From what I understand we can't observe both relativistic observations simultaneously thus non-simultaneity can not be proven.......

Maybe you can show how non-simultaneity can be proven as non-simultaneous?

MOD [Mutually observed dilation] also can not be proven and only the subject of a mathematical extrapolation.

Can any one show how these two aspects of SRT can possibly be shown by direct observation?

QQ,

MOD can easily be shown by having an accurate clock on the ISS report it's time to a ground station and vice versa.

In 2007 the PARCS (Primary Atomic Reference Clock in Space) will be flown. It's main purpose is not to show MOD (nobody seems to care!) but it could be used to demonstrate it. The ISS is sufficiently "inertial". How is this affected by the earth clock not being inertial? Not sure.

A better way would be to use two sats in vastly different orbits.

A better way would be to use two sats in vastly different orbits.

Damn it SL you just don't seem to want to recognize that Mutual Dilation is not Reciprocity. Which are you trying to prove here?

Are you trying to prove that two clocks with equal velocity dilate equally? That is mutual dilation.

or

Are your trying to prove reciprocity as advocated by SRT where each clock runs slower than the other?

Damn it SL you just don't seem to want to recognize that Mutual Dilation is not Reciprocity. Which are you trying to prove here?

Are you trying to prove that two clocks with equal velocity dilate equally? That is mutual dilation.

or

Are your trying to prove reciprocity as advocated by SRT where each clock runs slower than the other?


I thought SL , described his definition quite clearly with this post earlier:
The experiment was intended to demonstrate the "I say your clock is dilated, while you say my clock is dilated" effect. I researched this, including contacting NASA and several universities. To my amazement, this apparently simple test has never been explicitly carried out, although all agreed that it must happen.

Whatever you wish to call it (Mutual Observed Dilation-MOD) that is all I was looking for and that is stated explicitly in the experiment description - The "I say your clock is dilated, while you say my clock is dilated" effect".
and IMO it requires simultaneousness to prove, which SRT forbids....

I started to read it but couldn't determine to my satisfaction what frame you were referring to and when so I stopped reading it.

So you are unable to hold casual discussion on principles alone and must have specific gendankins to calculate? That seems limited to me.

I thought SL , described his definition quite clearly with this post earlier:

and IMO it requires simultaneousness to prove, which SRT forbids....

What he described is Reciprocity. Why he insists on calling it Mutual Dilation is beyond me. Mutual Dilation is entirely a different matter. It confuses the issue.

Especially since he once joined Yuriy in claiming muon collisons proved reciprocity and they are based on mutual dilation to properly intersect.

MacM:

Are your trying to prove reciprocity as advocated by SRT where each clock runs slower than the other?

Mac,

All I ever expect to see is a report from spaceship A that says he got timing data from B that indicates B's clock is running slow compared to his (A), and vice-versa, where A and B have a relative velocity difference.

Is this a problem? Is this reciprocity or mutual dilation?

So you are unable to hold casual discussion on principles alone and must have specific gendankins to calculate? That seems limited to me. No. I just didn't find your post very clear and therefore didn't want to make inane comments.

Mac,

All I ever expect to see is a report from spaceship A that says he got timing data from B that indicates B's clock is running slow compared to his (A), and vice-versa, where A and B have a relative velocity difference.

Is this a problem? Is this reciprocity or mutual dilation?

maybe it's mutually reciprical obervable dilation.....hmmmmmmmm MROD :)

Yeah, I got your MROD right here buddy... :D

Mac,

All I ever expect to see is a report from spaceship A that says he got timing data from B that indicates B's clock is running slow compared to his (A), and vice-versa, where A and B have a relative velocity difference.

Is this a problem? Is this reciprocity or mutual dilation?

A couple of clarifications.

1 - You are not totally incorrect using the term Mutual. But you must be careful because the conotation or meaning behind the word is different used in different contexts. I have found numerous disucssions of "Reciprocity" which refer to it as Mutual. But in those descriptions the term mutual means like relavistic affects and does not mean recipocal or equal dilation other than in the magnitude of the dilation relative to itself.

Mutual as you sometimes used it is merely equal dilation as in co-moving clocks or muons with equal velocity to some third collision point. In that case mutual means the same absolute dilation and no relative dilation.

2 - Your description above would be best refered to as reciprocity in that the meaning of mutual can be mis-interpreted.

Mutual Dilation in fact can only be observed from a third FOR since it generally means no systemic dilation between the clocks but that they both have slowed equally from their rest tick rate with no differential between them.

Reciprocity means as you state above "Each has a tick rate equally slower than itself".

Ok.

No. I just didn't find your post very clear and therefore didn't want to make inane comments.

I'll accept that.

Rosnet,

I think the problem is that no matter where you place the clocks in a rotating frame, they are never inertial, and that is all SR deals with - uniform motion. You would clearly be testing some aspect of SR but modified by GR somehow? I'm not a physicist and can't reconcile the non-inertial effects such that it would yield a significant result regarding MOD.

Any physicists out there want to weigh in?

It does make a difference where you place the clocks. I agree that there will be non-inertial effects, but what I've provided is a way to get arond them so that they don't matter. I haven't eliminated these effects. But given the symmetry of the situation, the effects will be equal for both of them. Go through it once more. Both have the same acceleration. But the reciprocity issue still exists. Which is all that we're concerned about. C1 should see C2 tick at the same (slower) rate, which C2 observes for C1's ticks. Tus, they both see each other dilate. That is what we were trying to confirm in the first place. Since the non-inertial effects, although they exist, are <I>equal</I> for both the clocks, I can't see any problem as far as reciprocity is concerned. Read my post again.

It does make a difference where you place the clocks. I agree that there will be non-inertial effects, but what I've provided is a way to get arond them so that they don't matter. I haven't eliminated these effects. But given the symmetry of the situation, the effects will be equal for both of them. Go through it once more. Both have the same acceleration. But the reciprocity issue still exists. Which is all that we're concerned about. C1 should see C2 tick at the same (slower) rate, which C2 observes for C1's ticks. Tus, they both see each other dilate. That is what we were trying to confirm in the first place. Since the non-inertial effects, although they exist, are <I>equal</I> for both the clocks, I can't see any problem as far as reciprocity is concerned. Read my post again.

Be careful. You are starting to talk perception by stating what they "See". The only issue on the table is the physical times accumulated on the clocks upon subsequent comparision, not the view of the clock while in motion.

Only accumulated time differential can be considered physical.

Be careful. You are starting to talk perception by stating what they "See".

The only issue on the table is the physical times accumulated on the clocks upon subsequent comparision, not the view of the clock while in motion.

Only accumulated time differential can be considered physical.

And of course, once the clocks are brought into the same frame, there will be no discrepancy (they will be equal if deceleration is symmetrical or one will be less than the other), just as SRT predicts. Mutual dilation is only an effect seen from one frame to another. Which sums up almost a year of debate on the subject.

Rosnet,

Since I've stopped debating the validity of SRT, I feel no need to do any experiments. I already know what the results will be. I'll just wait for the PARCS to be flown in 2007 and I'm sure someone will report the effect of mutual dilation (or whatever you want to call it).

And of course, once the clocks are brought into the same frame, there will be no discrepancy (they will be equal if deceleration is symmetrical or one will be less than the other), just as SRT predicts. Mutual dilation is only an effect seen from one frame to another. Which sums up almost a year of debate on the subject.

Not hardly. You still don't seem to understand SR. Mutual Dilation has not been debated. It is Reciprocity which is argued.

Mutual Dilation: Each ticks slower than at rest by equal amounts and there is no time dilation between them.

Reciprocity: Is each clock accumulates less time than the other. That is also predicted by SR and that is where SR fails and what the debate issue is.

Damn it to hell. I said I wasn't going to do this... Oh well.

You still don't seem to understand SR.
Ha!

Mutual Dilation: Each ticks slower than at rest by equal amounts and there is no time dilation between them.
Why can't you just state what SR actually says?

"Each clock is observed to tick slower by the other observer"

That's it! There is no absolute measure by which to make the statement "Each ticks slower than at rest". According to who? (oh I forgot, your imaginary friend in the mystical "third" frame).

Reciprocity: Is each clock accumulates less time than the other. That is also predicted by SR and that is where SR fails and what the debate issue is.
Bull...Shit.

All you will ever see is a report from each ship that says the other clock was ticking slower. If both accelerate equally to match frames, then no difference will be observed.

If one accelerates to catch the other, there will be a net difference.

That's it! You are misinterpreting, misreading and misunderstanding SRT. And you are making up a strawman to do battle with. Having fun?

Now I'm done.

Quitter

Damn it to hell. I said I wasn't going to do this... Oh well.

:D I knew you couldn't resist. I saw you spreading the SRT rhetoric.

Why can't you just state what SR actually says?

"Each clock is observed to tick slower by the other observer"

I have. Further more I have also stated if you choose to claim it is merely perception I won't argue, even though I disagree. But James R and others (you at one time) have claimed it is physically real. The only physically real time dilation is that which results in accumulated time differentials between clocks.

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

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

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

Now I do believe you will agree that SRT claims time dilation due to relative motion. The above description declares relative motion is recipocal; therefore they are predicting reciprocity of time dilation, not some observational illusion.

That's it! There is no absolute measure by which to make the statement "Each ticks slower than at rest". According to who? (oh I forgot, your imaginary friend in the mystical "third" frame).

You really should go study a bit before getting synical.

Bull...Shit.

All you will ever see is a report from each ship that says the other clock was ticking slower. If both accelerate equally to match frames, then no difference will be observed.

If one accelerates to catch the other, there will be a net difference.

That's it! You are misinterpreting, misreading and misunderstanding SRT. And you are making up a strawman to do battle with. Having fun?

Now I'm done.

You aren't done until you tell us given two clocks with relative motion (assume 0.866c) which one, either, neither will be time dilated according to accumulated time as predicted by SRT due to relative motion.

And until you tell us how you propose to demonstrate reciprocity; which you asserted you were going to do.

You aren't done until you tell us given two clocks with relative motion (assume 0.866c) which one, either, neither will be time dilated according to accumulated time as predicted by SRT due to relative motion.

When and how are they brought back together? When are they started and stopped, and in which frame does this occur simultaneously?

When and how are they brought back together? When are they started and stopped, and in which frame does this occur simultaneously?

I've been through this to many times to keep repeating it. But if you now want to assert that it is acceleraton which induces the accumulated time offset, you are also saying there is no physical time dilation due to relative velocity.

Sort out what you believe, MacM, then we can talk.

But if you now want to assert that it is acceleraton which induces the accumulated time offset, you are also saying there is no <B>physical time dilation</B> due to relative velocity.
But James R and others (you at one time) have claimed it is <B>physically real</B>. The only <B>physically real time dilation</B> is that which results in accumulated time differentials between clocks

It's not! That's the whole point. For each obvserver, what is real is what is happening in his own frame. There's no way you can stand back and look at all the frames and say "All right, so this is what is really happening". Reality is relative.
Huh? Excuse me, what was that?
REALITY IS RELATIVE.

<I>Now</I>, do you get it? There is no such thing as 'really real'. What you claim as 'physical time dilation' is also relative, since it depends on who stops in wich frame. Acceleration does change things. And as to your views on Length Contraction, take a look at the second derivation given in the thread "Length Contracion, Muon Experiment, and other issues". You either haven't seen it, or choose to pretend that you haven't, since you obviously have no answer to that.

It's not! That's the whole point. For each obvserver, what is real is what is happening in his own frame. There's no way you can stand back and look at all the frames and say "All right, so this is what is really happening". Reality is relative.
Huh? Excuse me, what was that?
REALITY IS RELATIVE.

Now before you go making any definate statements... (oops, too late), I hope you realize that the relativity of simultaneity has never been proven. It is a result of special realtivity, but that is it.

Hi Rosnet,

So you are saying that by placing C1 and C2 diametrically opposed, we should observe mutual dialtion, yes? That there is relative velocity 2rω between C1 and C2 under this condition.

My question then is this. Are there any hidden assumptions in SR regarding an increasing space dimension between two non-comoving inertial frames that invalidates this setup.

Another question is this. Is the 'v' in the calculations for time dilation (gamma) truly a velocity? A vector quantity? Or is it the scalar quantity speed? If it is truly just the magnitude of the velocity vector then the experiment will fail since any two objects rotating at a fixed radius about a common point have the same speed.

Although, when I imagine an instantaneous "snapshot" of the objects they have equal and opposite linear velocity vectors (i.e. tangential velocity).

Hmm...

Thoughts?

Another question is this. Is the 'v' in the calculations for time dilation (gamma) truly a velocity? A vector quantity? Or is it the scalar quantity speed? If it is truly just the magnitude of the velocity vector then the experiment will fail since any two objects rotating at a fixed radius about a common point have the same speed.

Thoughts? First of all, it must be a vector quantity. In the derivation of the lorentz transformations, v is considered in the x direction only - y and z components are said to be 0.

Second, I assumed 1 object was rotating around the second? You have two objects at the same radius from a common center? I think I don't understand.

Ask Rosnet. The way I read his OP, C1 and C2 are on the circumference, diametrically opposed (to yield maximum delta v of 2rω ) on the same rotating platform. Hence my questions.

And I agree re the 'v' being a vector.

Ask Rosnet. The way I read his OP, C1 and C2 are on the circumference, diametrically opposed (to yield maximum delta v of 2rω ) on the same rotating platform. Hence my questions.
OK, in that case I don't even want to think about the SR equations. Seems you'd have to have x and y components or derive the SR equations in cylindrical coordinates? I don't know - but it sure doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

I'm hoping Rosnet will clarify here.

It's not! That's the whole point. For each obvserver, what is real is what is happening in his own frame. There's no way you can stand back and look at all the frames and say "All right, so this is what is really happening". Reality is relative.
Huh? Excuse me, what was that?
REALITY IS RELATIVE.

<I>Now</I>, do you get it? There is no such thing as 'really real'. What you claim as 'physical time dilation' is also relative, since it depends on who stops in wich frame. Acceleration does change things. And as to your views on Length Contraction, take a look at the second derivation given in the thread "Length Contracion, Muon Experiment, and other issues". You either haven't seen it, or choose to pretend that you haven't, since you obviously have no answer to that.

You really should take a tranquilizer or blood pressure medicine, or something.

Then when you calm down go read some real information which shows your theory is full of holes. Thinbk not then please post at least ONE case of data supported reciprocity.

MacM:

Then when you calm down go read some real information which shows your theory is full of holes. Thinbk not then please post at least ONE case of data supported reciprocity.

But why should we even look Mac? Reciprocity is your invention and has nothing to do with SR. The only thing SR implies at all is mutually observed dilation with resolution upon the different spacetime frames becoming synchronized. There is no physical reality common to differing frames. Reality really is relative. If you want to insist that both clocks REALLY, REALLY accumulate less time than the other according to SR, then you simply have not understood that objects with different velocities occupy different spacetime realities.

Oh well.

Reciprocity is your invention and has nothing to do with SR. I beg to disagree. MacM did not invent reciprocity.

From Math Pages (http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm):

This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1.

That is all reciprocity means. Then one infers from reciprocity that S1 sees S2's clock dilated and S2 sees S1's clock dilated.

The only thing SR implies at all is mutually observed dilation with resolution upon the different spacetime frames becoming synchronized.
What you just said is rather confusing to me, but I assume it means the same as the above?

then you simply have not understood that objects with different velocities occupy different spacetime realities.

While I understand this concept, I have issues with it - particularly it depends on the existence of length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity - only time will tell. :D

Aer,

MacM imparts a completely different meaning to "reciprocity" than the definition you gave. The definition you posted say exactly what I stated.

The only thing SR implies at all is mutually observed dilation

That's it. Call it what you want.

with resolution upon the different spacetime frames becoming synchronized. ”

All this says is, in response to MacM's version of "reciprocity", that to compare clocks in any physically meaningful way, they must be in the same frame.

While I understand this concept, I have issues with it - particularly it depends on the existence of length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity - only time will tell.

Yes, we are aware of this, hence some of your threads here, right? :)

All this says is, in response to MacM's version of "reciprocity", that to compare clocks in any physically meaningful way, they must be in the same frame. Yep, and to do so, one must accelerate into the others frame - and the acceleration fixes everything :D I've heard it all before, still think it's :m: without experimental proof of some of the finer points SR requires.

Yep, see above.

Yes, we are aware of this, hence some of your threads here, right? :) I was hoping you wouldn't notice.

I was hoping you wouldn't notice.

Fat chance!

I would love to see some experiments that clearly demonstrate length contraction and mutual dilation. It would be cool.

But why should we even look Mac? Reciprocity is your invention and has nothing to do with SR.


PLEASE. How many times should I post the text and descriptions of SRT from the Math Site.? It explicitly defines reciprocity precisely as I use it.

The only thing SR implies at all is mutually observed dilation with resolution upon the different spacetime frames becoming synchronized. There is no physical reality common to differing frames. Reality really is relative. If you want to insist that both clocks REALLY, REALLY accumulate less time than the other according to SR, then you simply have not understood that objects with different velocities occupy different spacetime realities.

Oh well.

Oh well indeed. I guess I need to return with the link once more. I am afraid it is you that do not lunderstand what SRT advocates.

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

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

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

If you consider one at rest and the other in motion and calculates any SR functions; then reverse FOR's and consider the other at rest and the other in motion and calculate, you have reciproicty and that means each runs slower than the other.

This is not MacM's view it is the SRT view. Learn it.

MacM:

...you have reciproicty and that means each runs slower than the other.

...you have reciproicty and that means each is observed to run slower than the other from their respective frames.

There. Fixed that for you too.

Yes, in their own frame (S1 or S2). Each is in its own spacetime coordinate reality. The only way to make a physically meaningful comparison is to join the two frames.

You need to abandon this incredible fixation you have with what's "really, really real". Two relatively moving frames can never compare clocks, lengths or event timing, and acheive agreement. They are in their own little universes defined by the relatively skewed spacetimes as seen by the other frame.

...you have reciproicty and that means each is observed to run slower than the other from their respective frames.

There. Fixed that for you too.

Yes, in their own frame (S1 or S2). Each is in its own spacetime coordinate reality. The only way to make a physically meaningful comparison is to join the two frames.

You need to abandon this incredible fixation you have with what's "really, really real". Two relatively moving frames can never compare clocks, lengths or event timing, and acheive agreement. They are in their own little universes defined by the relatively skewed spacetimes as seen by the other frame.

Don't try to sweep the issue under the rug by declaring it observational. We have been and are only discussing actual accumulated times by the clocks.

You need to abandon SRT and get real.

Don't try to sweep the issue under the rug by declaring it observational. We have been and are only discussing actual accumulated times by the clocks.

All it can be is observational between frames since they don't share a real set of spacetime coordinates. All anyone can say about another frame is what they see and measure. How could it be otherwise?

The only way to compare "actual" time on clocks is to bring them pyhsically together. Then no discrepancies are found. They will match, or one will show less time than the other.

You are like the guy insisting that my name - Masurdin Hamyabrashkar - is pronounced Mas-yoor-dine Ham-you-bray-shaker after I've told you it's
Ma-shur-deen Haam-ya-brash-car.

We are telling you what SR says. It's not "our interpretation". It's what the founders of SRT say. Quit putting words into the mouth of the ghost of AE.

Ask Rosnet. The way I read his OP, C1 and C2 are on the circumference, diametrically opposed (to yield maximum delta v of 2rω ) on the same rotating platform. Hence my questions.

And I agree re the 'v' being a vector.

if you take the magnitude of distplacement and then find the rate, you'll get zero scalar speed, but that's not correct You'll get zero even in your original design, if you follow this method. What you should do is take the vector velocity and then take the magnitude

Ok, Rosnet. You're convinced that this will yield mutual time dilation? I myself am 99.9% convinced.

Superluminal: Ok, Rosnet. You're convinced that this will yield mutual time dilation? I myself am 99.9% convinced

Me (very eagerly): So are you going to go ahead with your experiment?

I intend to, yes. I need to analyze the precision of my oscillators a bit more, but I don't see a problem.

Except money. Need to save a little money...

The only way to compare "actual" time on clocks is to bring them pyhsically together. Then no discrepancies are found. They will match, [colkor=red]or one will show less time than the other.[/color]

And I have repeated that this is the only issue I am debating. Not illusions of motion.

Also regarding the highlite in red. You have and will never find reciprocity as advocated by SRT. You will find that when one clock accumulates less time than another it is due to their respective velocities referance their common origin rest frame, not their relative veloicty (except in the limited cases where only one clock has accelerated from that frame and then there is still NO reciprocity. That is all I have been saying.

We are telling you what SR says. It's not "our interpretation". It's what the founders of SRT say. Quit putting words into the mouth of the ghost of AE.

Speak for yourself. Others have claimed what SR advocates is reality. That view is unsupported and is unsupportable.

Well, I'm as convinced that you are utterly wrong as you are that I am. Impasse.

Well, I'm as convinced that you are utterly wrong as you are that I am. Impasse.

I gladly accept your statement that you are convienced but I would not accept statements that claim it as a fact.

Agreed then.

OK - so what is the final setup, is it pretty much as described in Rosnet's OP?

Yep.

Very well, sounds good - do we have any rough technical details?

What is the size of the objects?

What is the radius, r?

What is the angular velocity, &omega;?

How will the objects be accelerated and decelerated to speed/rest?

After reviewing this with members here and in other forums, the consensus was that the non-inertial nature of the experiment would not test what we were looking for, i.e. SRT's prediction of Mutual Observed Dilation-MOD (whatever you want to call it), under inertial conditions.

One thing that I forgot to mention before; There are no extra calculations coming in for an accelerated frame of reference. Time Dilation does not depend directly on your acceleration. Only on instantaneous speed, which is constant in the case of uniform circular motion. The only thing to worry about is the time dilation of the other clock as seen by the accelerating (non-inertial) clock. This could present a problem because even in this frame, the other clock, although accelerating, is inertial. But that is what I fixed for you. In the modified design, this effect is equal for both clocks, so both should report the other to have slowed down, by the same amount. So don't worry about te frames being non-inertial. Symmetry takes care of everything.

So what is the hypothesis for this experiment?

What do you mean?
This experiment is meant to dtermine whether there is mutual observerd, or, reciprocal, or whatever, time dilation

The only thing to worry about is the time dilation of the other clock as seen by the accelerating (non-inertial) clock.

I am getting tired of repeating this. Pay attention. No arguement has been made regarding what is "Seen". It is what does the time dilation by accumulated time record.

What do you mean?
This experiment is meant to dtermine whether there is mutual observerd, or, reciprocal, or whatever, time dilation

The only issue is "Reciprocity". Your test must have each clock record less time than the other. That is the issue. That is the false claim of SRT that is being challenged.


"Mutual Dilation" is not being challenged. Mutual dilation occurs when two clocks are co-moving at equal veloicty for example. In cases of mutual dilation there is no systemic recorded time dilation between the clocks since each dilates equally. The dilation is relative to their common rest frame before acceleration.

Your test must have each clock record less time than the other.

In two different reference frames, which is no problem for SRT.

Do you have any evidence that one clock will record MORE time than the other? No, you don't.

MacM, I have said this before, but you didn't answer it. Even accumulated time is relateive, in the sense that it depends on who stops in whose frame. Given two observers moving with relative to each other, if the first one deccelerates and stops in the other's frame, his clock will have accumulated less time than the other's. If on the other hand, the second one deccelerates and stops in the first one's frame, <I>his</I> clock will show less accumulated time. Okay, according to each person, the other is the one who deccelerates, but they have to agree on <I>who</I> deccelerated non-inertially. And this means there is a preference for one frame, one observer. But while they are in uniform motion, the other person's clock is slowed according to each, in each one's frame. This is as real as the accumulated time. Or are you claiming that a moving frame has no right to reality?

What do you mean?
This experiment is meant to dtermine whether there is mutual observerd, or, reciprocal, or whatever, time dilation

By hyphothesis, I mean I want an explicit explaination of what you expect to happen.

hypothesis:A specific statement regarding the relationship between two variables. In evaluation research, this typically involves a prediction that the program or treatment will cause a specified outcome. Hypotheses are confirmed or denied based on empirical analysis.

Your test must have each clock record less time than the other.

This is a stupid proposition. The clocks necessarily undergo acceleration which affects the "clock accumulation" claim.

Do you have any evidence that one clock will record MORE time than the other? No, you don't.
Do you have any evidence that one clock will not record MORE time than the other? No, you don't.

Even accumulated time is relateive, in the sense that it depends on who stops in whose frame.
Even this hasn't been proven, where is the evidence for the relativity of simultaneity?

All:

Here's the proposition:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46454

The basic hypothesis holds, just the physical setup is different (rosnet's changes in the position of C2 to the rim of the "track")

Hypothesis:

After a sufficient time at speed (enough to show a measurable difference) C1 and C2 will transmit (digitally) their precision clock data to each other. An on board comparison will be made by C1 and C2 against their own clock data. The comparison results will be digitally transmitted to a stationary receiver (us). C1 is expected to show TC2 < TC1 and C2 is expected to show TC1 < TC2 in accord with SRT predictions of mutual observed dilation.

If the clocks are kept running, and the apparatus brought to a halt, C1 and C2 are expected to be in sync.

Ummm - a concern I guess.

You are assuming the acceleration of C1 and C2 will cancel each other out so each can consider themself an inertial reference frame? Sorry, I don't think I can agree with that. Please tell me there is something I am misunderstanding in the above.

They will definitely NOT be inertial. However the "clock postulate" tells me that the effects of acceleration will not effect the time dilation.

(look up the clock postulate on google)

And:

Rosnet:

One thing that I forgot to mention before; There are no extra calculations coming in for an accelerated frame of reference. Time Dilation does not depend directly on your acceleration. Only on instantaneous speed, which is constant in the case of uniform circular motion. The only thing to worry about is the time dilation of the other clock as seen by the accelerating (non-inertial) clock. This could present a problem because even in this frame, the other clock, although accelerating, is inertial. But that is what I fixed for you. In the modified design, this effect is equal for both clocks, so both should report the other to have slowed down, by the same amount. So don't worry about te frames being non-inertial. Symmetry takes care of everything.

OK - I was just saying that your animations seemed to assume that each was an inertial frame - I guess I see the perspective now.

Edit: actually I need an explaination to this statement in the quote by Rosnet: This could present a problem because even in this frame, the other clock, although accelerating, is inertial.

accelerating and inertial? I guess you are saying it looks inertial, but really is not. OK - all good.

I think he means "appears to be inertial" from the perspective of the other clock.

Not 100% sure though.

In two different reference frames, which is no problem for SRT.

Do you have any evidence that one clock will record MORE time than the other? No, you don't.

Do you have any evidence that it does. It is your theory and it is totally unsupported in this area. Get real. The burden is on those that claim the theory is valid.

You can prove it does by providing data. You nor I can ever prove
something does not ever happen simply because it has not happened yet.

But your failure to jprovide evidence that it does puts the benefit of doubt in my column.

But your failure to jprovide evidence that it does puts the benefit of doubt in my column.

No, it doesn't. You are making authoritative-sounding claims to some truth with no support whatsoever. It is up to you to show some evidence that what you say is true.

On my side, on the other hand, we have thousands of experiments which support relativity. Don't tell me that just because we haven't done your pet experiment relativity is falsified. Relativity is a coherent theory. It is impossible for the tested parts to be true while the rest is false. You can't pick and choose some parts and not others, or the whole theory collapses, as I have carefully explained to you before.

No, it doesn't. You are making authoritative-sounding claims to some truth with no support whatsoever. It is up to you to show some evidence that what you say is true.

On my side, on the other hand, we have thousands of experiments which support relativity. Don't tell me that just because we haven't done your pet experiment relativity is falsified. Relativity is a coherent theory. It is impossible for the tested parts to be true while the rest is false. You can't pick and choose some parts and not others, or the whole theory collapses, as I have carefully explained to you before.
JamesR what you are saying is that even if someone does an experiment that disproves SRT such as an experiment that can show no dilations as predicted by SRT [SL's experiment] you would still consider such proof as impossible because of every other experiment that shows it is Valid?
Surely if say for example someone showed that the Gamma factor was wrong this would discredit the entire theory or at least amend such a theory.
As SRT is an all inclusive theory any error proved in any of it's predictions would render the entire theory as invalid [due to it's all inclusivity], as one aspect supports all other aspects.
Is there any evidence to support the dilation predictions in full?
Is there any evidence to support non-simultaneity directly?
In fact
Is evidence even possible?

QQ,

Try this. We know very well that time dilation occurrs. GPS, particle accelerators...

Now, imagine if we did an experiment with two space probes A and B. A reports the B as dilated - fine. Then, B reports A as what??? Not dilated? What would this mean?

QQ,

Try this. We know very well that time dilation occurrs. GPS, particle accelerators...

Now, imagine if we did an experiment with two space probes A and B. A reports the B as dilated - fine. Then, B reports A as what??? Not dilated? What would this mean?
If B reports A as not dilated when A has reported B as dilated then this to my way of thinking would indicate that the declaration of a Rest frame is invalid....thus this would eventually lead to questions about the validity of the invariance of light.
If any of the predictions of SRT are proved invalid then it will eventually discredit the notion of invariance of light. Or most importantly the application of the invariance of light. As all predictions are premised on our application and understanding of 'c'

Now because we have some evidence to support the notion of invariance of light it will prove difficult to reconcile the new evidence....however as I have suggested in other threads if we assume lights invariance is a mass/time effect and not a light velocity effect our problems simply disappear but alas so too does SRT.

Hmm...

by proving invariance is a mass/time effect we are able to get into issues like inertia and dimensional physics, and reconcile QM with Relativity

Now, imagine if we did an experiment with two space probes A and B. A reports the B as dilated - fine. Then, B reports A as what??? Not dilated? What would this mean?
Local Ethers - muahahah ;-) :m: :eek: :D

Apparently THE POWERS THAT BE limit the number of emoticons to 3, so I had to use an old fashion one.

the problem is how do we prove that lights invariance or that light itself is a mass/time effect and not a velocity effect?

The answer to this question is one I would really like to find.

No, it doesn't. You are making authoritative-sounding claims to some truth with no support whatsoever. It is up to you to show some evidence that what you say is true.

Look if you can't support your theory just admit it.

On my side, on the other hand, we have thousands of experiments which support relativity. Don't tell me that just because we haven't done your pet experiment relativity is falsified.

This has nothing to do with me proposing some experiment. It is simply a matter of considering the evidence of experiments to date (100 years and no reciprocity). Further more you are at a complete loss to give any physical explanation as to how reciprocity could be possible.

None of your experiments "Support Relativity". They only support a gamma function. Relativity goes beyond gamma and advocates many things. The experiments do not support what is advocated but only a one way gamma function.

Relativity is a coherent theory. It is impossible for the tested parts to be true while the rest is false.

You call yourself a scientist. That is fraud. If I theorize that water will boil at 212 F at sea level and that it will form ice a 65 F and you boil the water and that occurs at 212 as predicted, so then we are assured that it will form ice at 65 F. I see how that works.

You can't pick and choose some parts and not others, or the whole theory collapses, as I have carefully explained to you before.

You are the one picking and choosing. You choose to claim all parts are valid because some parts have been tested. I am mandating that all parts must be tested to be proven. Now prove reciprocity.

the problem is how do we prove that lights invariance or that light itself is a mass/time effect and not a velocity effect?
Little much :m: ?

If I theorize that water will boil at 212 F at sea level and that it will form ice a 65 F and you boil the water and that occurs at 212 as predicted, so then we are assured that it will form ice at 65 F. I see how that works. Best MacM quote ever - one I can't find fault with :cool:

Little much :m: ?
ha....I am out there, there and ther ....that's for sure......
But then again if you think about it..............got nothing to loose and all to gain

Look if you can't support your theory just admit it.



This has nothing to do with me proposing some experiment. It is simply a matter of considering the evidence of experiments to date (100 years and no reciprocity). Further more you are at a complete loss to give any physical explanation as to how reciprocity could be possible.

None of your experiments "Support Relativity". They only support a gamma function. Relativity goes beyond gamma and advocates many things. The experiments do not support what is advocated but only a one way gamma function.



You call yourself a scientist. That is fraud. If I theorize that water will boil at 212 F at sea level and that it will form ice a 65 F and you boil the water and that occurs at 212 as predicted, so then we are assured that it will form ice at 65 F. I see how that works.



You are the one picking and choosing. You choose to claim all parts are valid because some parts have been tested. I am mandating that all parts must be tested to be proven. Now prove reciprocity.

Without wanting to ruffle too many feathers this post by MacM is the clearest statement of his position yet.....


"Show us the money", he cried....

MacM:

Look if you can't support your theory just admit it.

Relativity is not my theory.

This has nothing to do with me proposing some experiment. It is simply a matter of considering the evidence of experiments to date (100 years and no reciprocity).

So you claim.

Are there any experiments to date which support your views? No.

Further more you are at a complete loss to give any physical explanation as to how reciprocity could be possible.

The theory of relativity is a physical explanation, silly.

None of your experiments "Support Relativity". They only support a gamma function.

Whatever you say.

You call yourself a scientist. That is fraud. If I theorize that water will boil at 212 F at sea level and that it will form ice a 65 F and you boil the water and that occurs at 212 as predicted, so then we are assured that it will form ice at 65 F. I see how that works.

Show me your coherent theory of why ice forms at 65 F.

You choose to claim all parts are valid because some parts have been tested.

I claim all parts are valid because the ones that have been tested would not have been proved correct if the other parts had been false.

I am mandating that all parts must be tested to be proven. Now prove reciprocity.

Why don't you disprove it, if you can?

MacM:

Relativity is not my theory.

Nor mine. But you claim support for it. Don't dodge the issue.

Are there any experiments to date which support your views? No.

Are there any that disproves it? No.

The theory of relativity is a physical explanation, silly.

Now this is the height of stupidity. Relativity has no physical explanations. It makes mathematical predictions.

Ort maybe I missed something. What is the physical cause of time dilation?. What is the physical cause of spatial contraction? What is the physical cause of reciprocity?

Show me your coherent theory of why ice forms at 65 F.[/.quote]

Before callng relativity coherent show me reciprocity.

[quote]I claim all parts are valid because the ones that have been tested would not have been proved correct if the other parts had been false.

False fiat. Unsupported gibberish.

Why don't you disprove it, if you can?

Not my obligation. You claim relativity is completely valid then show us reciprocity.

I claim all parts are valid because the ones that have been tested would not have been proved correct if the other parts had been false.
This is just surcumbing to the faith that the circular reasoning of SRT is Correct. Faith that just because you prove one aspect means that the rest is correct by default.
Unfortunately I have to agree with MacM.....to me this is not what science is about...belief or faith.....but hard evidence......
If you prove one aspect of a circle as being true does this automatically prove the truth of all aspects of the circle.....
Take a segment or a curve .....does this prove that the segment is a part of a circle or is it just proof of a segment or a curve?

MacM:

Are there any experiments to date which support your views? No.

Are there any that disproves it? No.

We don't need experiments to disprove your wacky physics, MacM. As I have shown, it is internally inconsistent, and so cannot, under any circumstances, be a correct description of reality.

Now this is the height of stupidity. Relativity has no physical explanations. It makes mathematical predictions.

What is a physical theory, MacM? Do you have any idea?

If relativity is NOT a physical theory, please give an example of something which is.

What is the physical cause of time dilation?

Relative motion and/or gravity.

What is the physical cause of spatial contraction?

There is no spatial contraction, only length contraction. Cause: relative motion or gravity.

What is the physical cause of reciprocity?

The fact that all inertial frames are equivalent, and none are preferred.

Before callng relativity coherent show me reciprocity.

I've shown you over and over again. Your memory is fading.

QQ:

This is just surcumbing to the faith that the circular reasoning of SRT is Correct. Faith that just because you prove one aspect means that the rest is correct by default.

It isn't "just one aspect" of relativity which is consistent with experiment. Literally thousands of different experiments have been done, all of which support one or more aspects of relativity.

examples: gravitational red shift experiments, particle accelerator experiments, conservation of relativistic momentum experiments, deflection of light by massive bodies, the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, gravitational radiation from binary stars.

The list goes on and on.

Unfortunately I have to agree with MacM.....to me this is not what science is about...belief or faith.....but hard evidence......

How much hard evidence do you require? Are you even aware of what's out there?

If you prove one aspect of a circle as being true does this automatically prove the truth of all aspects of the circle.....

Do you understand the theoretical framework of relativity, at all?

Actually I need an explaination to this statement in the quote by Rosnet: This could present a problem because even in this frame, the other clock, although accelerating, is inertial.

accelerating and inertial? I guess you are saying it looks inertial, but really is not. OK - all good.

No, it does <I>not</I> look inertial, but actually <I>is</I>. I was talking about the clock in the center of the circle (C2), in SL's original setup. Acceleration is the rate of change velocity, and this isn't zero, from the frame of reference of the clock on the circumference (C1). From this frame, the C2 is accelerating, and this acceleration is equal and opposite to the acceleration of C1 in C2's frame. But the difference is that C1 is non-inertial, while C2 is inertial. In other words, there is a pseudo force (field) on all objects in C1's frame. But in this frame, C2 is accelerating in the same direction as the pseudo force, so that it is inertial. That is, C2 is in "free-fall", in C1's frame. but in C2's frame, there is no pseudo force on anything, but C1 is accelerating, so that it is non-inertial. For example, if we drop something, on earth, then the object is in free fall (neglecting air resistance effects). Another way to say this is that a non-inertial frame may <B>accelerate</B>, but it won't 'feel' any force.
In the original setup, both clocks were equally accelerating, according to each other's frame. But they weren't equally inertial (or non-inertial). This difference between C1 and C2 may effect a bias on the observed dilation, although I suspect it wouldn't. But in the new setup, both frames are equally non-inertial, as well as equally accelerating.

I was talking about the clock in the center of the circle (C2), in SL's original setup

Rosnet, we misunderstood you. (at least I did.)

OK - I read:
(blah blah blah) ... But in the new setup, both frames are equally non-inertial, as well as equally accelerating. HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I SAID! I was only refering to the new example. Don't offer some BS explaination about the other setup when the actual (new) setup is completely different. I am not going to read it.

And yes I do get frustrated when people can't take a little bit of time to try to understand what I am saying but take all the time they want to babble nonsense about some unrelated idea/topic.

QQ,


Aer:

“ Originally Posted by MacM
If I theorize that water will boil at 212 F at sea level and that it will form ice a 65 F and you boil the water and that occurs at 212 as predicted, so then we are assured that it will form ice at 65 F. I see how that works. ”
Best MacM quote ever - one I can't find fault with

This truly is a gem. But I find much fault with it. As an analogy to SR/GR it is verging on a lie.

Relativity was developed to address some observations that can not be reconciled by classical mechanics. The frame independence of the measurement of 'c', it's constancy, and the principle of simple relativity.

To this end, many experiments have been, and still are, being carried out to verify SR and GR to ever finer levels. Even MacM cannot deny this.

I will address his example above.

I theorize that water will boil at 212F at sea-level conditions based on the known principles of molecular and atomic physics (which have also been shown to be correct in other fields). The theory also predicts the change in a given volume of water with temperature. It predicts the conductivity of pure water, the mass of a given volume, and the surface tension. It also predicts the change in boiling and freezing points with changes in ambient pressure. It then predicts that water will freeze at 27F at sea-level conditions.

I go out and test every one of these predictions save one - the freezing of water. They all work exactly according to theory. Over and over again. So I conclude that water will absolutely freeze at 27F.

And I would be horribly wrong! Why? Because I knew nothing of the actual shape of the H2O molecule, and that it's volume would increase dramatically as it crystallized and so on, yielding a true freezing point of 32F.

My point is that MacM's example was shitty. The real situation is much, much simpler.

------------------------

I have a theory that says that if I make a mark on a glass wall and place 1" blocks (B) along the wall to the right of it, the distance from the mark will be +N_B * 1", and if I place them to the left, the distance will be -N_B * 1". I do experiments and find this to be exactly true. I place many blocks and take many measurements.

Now, a key prediction: If I step to the other side of the wall and look at my mark, the blocks that were marked as + will now appear as - and vice-versa. However I have not been able to figure out a way to get to the other side of the wall. I know I can, but it's too difficult and costly and the results would be trivial given the experimentally proven nature of the symmetry of space and time.

To imagine the results to be non symmetrical, would be to throw out, not only my theory, but any result that depends on the symmetry of space and time. Essentially everything we know and have tested.

It would be equivalent to stating that, given all of your experience, you will nevertheless find that a ball dropped from your right hand will fall down at 9.8m/s while the same ball dropped from your left hand will fall up at 9.8m/s.

This truly is a gem. But I find much fault with it. As an analogy to SR/GR it is verging on a lie.Well I think the fault you see is just a consequence of your short sightedness.


Relativity was developed to address some observations that can not be reconciled by classical mechanics. The frame independence of the measurement of 'c', it's constancy, and the principle of simple relativity.
And your short sightedness is that you assume relativity as developed by Einstein is the only explaination for the said phenomenon that we know exists. The problem is, Relativity predicts things that have not been confirmed by experiment (length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity). The reciprocity issue is a consequence of these two effects as well, so reciprocity has never been proven either. 100 years and we can't prove simple concepts as length contraction or the relativity of simultaneity? Think about it. Why does everyone here have to have such a hard head about the issue? It just makes you look dense. Sorry.

Then we have the likes of MacM and Geist who reject Relativity without cause. All the above applies to them too.

SL, possibly it is worth stating my position on SRT.
I have the greatest respect for the mind who showed us his thoughts on light and time. And by the way I have great respect for any one capable of even getting close to understanding this minds thoughts [referring of course to Albert Einstein]

Whilst on one hand AE opened the door to so many ways of scientific thought his theory of SRT by its very nature has the POTENTIAL to create an empasse in the world of physics. As it has been shown this has already occurred when considering the inability for uniformity and conformity between QM and Relativity.

Now because AE was involved in theorising about the very fundamentals of our universe the theory because of this very fact has to be all inclusive, outcomes such as E=mc^2 for example show the power of his thinking and inspiration.
Unfortunately most persons fail to see how E=mc^2 must be true and how it is derived from SRT postulates. That to find SRT invalid would be to find this formula also invalid.

However what is see is a theory that is 90% correct but fails to get over the line. It has given us so much and because it is so close to the physical truth it presents a barrier to getting to that ultimate 100 %. [ this is quite reasonable to expect too BTW]

Maybe it is because we as a collective are still feeling the effects of such a tremendous realisation that we are terrified of lettng it go and looking again at the issue thus giving ourselves a chance at the 100 % .

SRT has because of it's degree of veracity, become a barrier to greater truth and realisation. IMO

This is one reason I have been asking questions about lights Invariance and suggesting the seemingly absurd notion that it ['c'] may be mass/time and not light particle time.....to show that IF we have deluded ourselves about this fundamental and refuse to accept it as a delusion we will make little headway in this area of physics and hold all other areas back until we do.
[BTW IMO, E=mc^2 would still remain valid if light was a mass/time effect]

Is it absurd to question the very premise and assumptions of a theory? Is it absurd to point out that these assumptions and premises have yet to be fully explored and proved. It would be IMO a greater absurdity not to.

I am no physicist so I am not really qualified to be confident in my questions but I am qualified enough to know when there is a potential for self delusion due to the "Box" that is SRT.

It should be the first duty of all physicists to check and test every aspect of a theory and make no assumptions at all with out fear of loosing that theory.

To my way of thinking every aspect of SRT predictions should be easy to prove. And I find it discomforting to know that many aspects remain unproven and appear to be unprovable. The concern is that this inability to verify it's prediction has the Potential and I stress the word POTENTIAL if left unattended to keep us deluded and unable to get that 100% mentioned earlier.

If I was a qualified physicist I would be looking at all the assumptions being made and allowed. I would gauge all assumptions as to how large or small they are and then determine the strength of the theory.
For example: Light has now become such a confusing object that it is almost an absurdity. This being the outcome of possibly a flawed assumption. SRT's correctness. The nature of light has become more confused than it was prior to SRT.

For example I even question the very nature of "distance" as it normally referred to and hold the lightly held belief that distance is an illusion derived by having mass of three dimmensions in what is in effect, 2 dimensional space.

However as I said earlier, to invalidate SRT has the potential to invalidate E=mc^2 and it is little wonder there is reluctance to do so.....

QQ, that's quite the post.

Whilst on one hand AE opened the door to so many ways of scientific thought his theory of SRT by its very nature has the POTENTIAL to create an empasse in the world of physics. As it has been shown this has already occurred when considering the inability for uniformity and conformity between QM and Relativity.

Do we blame SRT for not conforming to QM or the otherway around?

However what is see is a theory that is 90% correct but fails to get over the line. It has given us so much and because it is so close to the physical truth it presents a barrier to getting to that ultimate 100 %. [ this is quite reasonable to expect too BTW]

I completely disagree. Within it's scope it has been shown by every experiment ever done to be an accurate description of nature. It's batting 1000 as we speak.

Maybe it is because we as a collective are still feeling the effects of such a tremendous realisation that we are terrified of lettng it go and looking again at the issue thus giving ourselves a chance at the 100 % .

We have 100% as it stands until SRT is falsified or shown to be incomplete.

SRT has because of it's degree of veracity, become a barrier to greater truth and realisation. IMO

How can huge steps along the way to "truth" be a barrier? SRT has illuminated the entire non-quantum world for our analysis. I find this statement to be absurd.

This is one reason I have been asking questions about lights Invariance and suggesting the seemingly absurd notion that it ['c'] may be mass/time and not light particle time.....to show that IF we have deluded ourselves about this fundamental and refuse to accept it as a delusion we will make little headway in this area of physics and hold all other areas back until we do.
[BTW IMO, E=mc^2 would still remain valid if light was a mass/time effect]

Physicist think about this all the time. There are still many puzzles out there. SRT helps to decipher many of them. And along the way, may (almost certainly will) lead to new physics.

Is it absurd to question the very premise and assumptions of a theory? Is it absurd to point out that these assumptions and premises have yet to be fully explored and proved. It would be IMO a greater absurdity not to.

Who disagrees? Physicists spend billions of dollars and entire careers refining ideas and testing SRT to the best of their ability in the hopes of either confirming it some more, or uncovering a breakdown that may illuminate new physics. Who do you think gets the Nobel prizes???

I am no physicist so I am not really qualified to be confident in my questions but I am qualified enough to know when there is a potential for self delusion due to the "Box" that is SRT.

No more so than any theory ever devised. The "box" is constantly being hammered by physicists. What makes SRT such a target? Because it defies conventional intuition? I think the self delusion is assuming you can intuitively grasp all areas of nature. This is human egocentrism.

It should be the first duty of all physicists to check and test every aspect of a theory and make no assumptions at all with out fear of loosing that theory.

They do, to the best of their ability. Again, what fear? Fear of winning a Nobel for opening up a whole new branch of physics?

To my way of thinking every aspect of SRT predictions should be easy to prove. And I find it discomforting to know that many aspects remain unproven and appear to be unprovable. The concern is that this inability to verify it's prediction has the Potential and I stress the word POTENTIAL if left unattended to keep us deluded and unable to get that 100% mentioned earlier.

Such as what? Length contraction? This is observed in MMX experiments.
Time dilation? Proven regularly as you well know.
Mutual observed time dilation? A very HARD experiment to do and worthless to physicists since it would yield nothing new re SRT.

Just a note. Physicists do experiments to get quantitative data to test predictions. The principle of relativity is proven. Time dilation is proven. Mutual time dilation is very difficult to show due to the difficulties of getting two reporting mechanisms moving fast enough to show measurable dilation to each other. Wait for the PARCS on the ISS in 2007. I'm sure someone in their spare time will correlate this clock and the ground clocks and see mutual dilation and say "neat" and forget about it. It's an insignificant result. The only ones worried about it are MacM and friends because they have no conception of what SRT actually says.

Relativity of simultaneity falls under the same umbrella.

All actual tests of SRT and GRT to date confirm them 100%, much to the chagrin of doctoral candidates who would love a juicy relativity problem to surface.

If I was a qualified physicist I would be looking at all the assumptions being made and allowed. I would gauge all assumptions as to how large or small they are and then determine the strength of the theory.
For example: Light has now become such a confusing object that it is almost an absurdity. This being the outcome of possibly a flawed assumption. SRT's correctness. The nature of light has become more confused than it was prior to SRT.

They do. And light is only confusing to you. If you learned to apply QED (Quantum ElectroDynamics) you would find that every behavior of electromagnetic radiation is explained perfectly. Without exception. It's non-intuitive nature is what annoys you. Too bad.

For example I even question the very nature of "distance" as it normally referred to and hold the lightly held belief that distance is an illusion derived by having mass of three dimmensions in what is effect 2 dimensional space.

Due to a lack of formal training and understanding of physics.

However as I said earlier, to invalidate SRT has the potential to invalidate E=mc^2 and it is little wonder there is reluctance to do so.....

Bullshit. This sums up my anger. There should be a sticky thread with a description of what physicists really do. I've worked with a number of them. None of them show this assumed fear, bias, political agenda, whatever you want to call it. They are just people who seem to enjoy their jobs and would feel lucky to uncover a real flaw in our understanding of nature and open up a new physics. Your assumption seems to be medieval in origin. They fear not the holy inquisition.

I think you all watch too many movies with stereotyped scientists. There is no conspiracy of physics to "hang on to" theories. Older physicists have attachments - some of them. But every young physicist is just waiting to pry apart the accepted paradigm and get their prize. And yes, it's hard to get a new theory rolling. It should be. Otherwise we'd be getting our science from MacM and company.

That too is quite the post superluminal. Your claim that Special Relativity is batting 1000 so to speak is misleading and verging on a lie. Why won't you answer to my points, specifically this:

The problem is, Relativity predicts things that have not been confirmed by experiment (length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity). The reciprocity issue is a consequence of these two effects as well, so reciprocity has never been proven either. 100 years and we can't prove simple concepts as length contraction or the relativity of simultaneity?

See here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47807) for an exposé on the finer points of the relativity of simulataneity.

Aer,

If a batter goes to bat 10 out of 20 innings and hits 10 times, he is batting 1000. You do not hold the times he didn't bat against him.

Of the tests of SR and GR, all of them have confirmed them to a high degree. The tests that havent been done cannot be counted against them.

Just a bit of elementary school logic.

Your claim that Special Relativity is batting 1000 so to speak is misleading and verging on a lie

Bullshit.

The problem is, Relativity predicts things that have not been confirmed by experiment (length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity).

Aer,

Did you even read my response to QQ?

QQ:

I think you underestimate physicists. They aren't stupid people. Do you really think they haven't considered these issues?

Whilst on one hand AE opened the door to so many ways of scientific thought his theory of SRT by its very nature has the POTENTIAL to create an empasse in the world of physics.

So does any theory, if proponents close their minds to alternatives.

As it has been shown this has already occurred when considering the inability for uniformity and conformity between QM and Relativity.

Physicists are working very hard right now to try to sort out the difficulties in reconciling relativity and quantum mechanics.

If relativity or quantum mechanics turns out to be wrong, then it will be in a way that leaves those theories as excellent approximations to whatever the new theory is.

Now because AE was involved in theorising about the very fundamentals of our universe the theory because of this very fact has to be all inclusive, outcomes such as E=mc^2 for example show the power of his thinking and inspiration. Unfortunately most persons fail to see how E=mc^2 must be true and how it is derived from SRT postulates. That to find SRT invalid would be to find this formula also invalid.

Not sure what you're saying here. E=mc^2 is a derived result from the theory of relativity. Experiments show that it is correct. Now, maybe you can derive it from some other theory. If so, bring it on!

However what is see is a theory that is 90% correct but fails to get over the line.

Which 10% is incorrect?

I know there are problems with reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity, but everybody knows that and is working on the problem. There's no wilful blindness of physicists imagining that everything is hunky dory. We know where the problems are, and we're looking for solutions.

Is it absurd to question the very premise and assumptions of a theory? Is it absurd to point out that these assumptions and premises have yet to be fully explored and proved. It would be IMO a greater absurdity not to.

It is good to question. But you can't question in a vacuum. The very FIRST step is to understand the theory in detail. THEN you can start to pick holes in it. If you try to do things the other way around, you end up looking stupid (cf. MacM). Because the problems you see are non-problems resulting from your own poor understanding of the theory.

It should be the first duty of all physicists to check and test every aspect of a theory and make no assumptions at all with out fear of loosing that theory.

It is impossible and impractical to exhaustively test every theory. Once you have enough supporting evidence, you only test the things you're doubtful about. And occasionally, you discover problems almost by accident, by testing a theory indirectly in the course of some other experiment.

To my way of thinking every aspect of SRT predictions should be easy to prove. And I find it discomforting to know that many aspects remain unproven and appear to be unprovable.

There are few aspects of relativity which are, in principle, unprovable, in my opinion. Certain tests have not been done, mostly because physicists are already very confident that the theory is correct, based on the fact that they use it successfully every day in other work, and it works. Frankly, physicists have better things to do with their time and money than to exhaustively test a theory they already know is correct to a known level of accuracy and in known limits.

If I was a qualified physicist I would be looking at all the assumptions being made and allowed.

That's one thing which makes relativity such a beautiful theory: there are so few assumptions, and they have been examined exhaustively for flaws already. Special relativity, for example, has only TWO assumptions, and all attacks on the theory must ultimately rest on knocking down one or both of those assumptions. Cranks don't realise that, though.

For example: Light has now become such a confusing object that it is almost an absurdity. This being the outcome of possibly a flawed assumption. SRT's correctness. The nature of light has become more confused than it was prior to SRT.

Not at all. SRT is a classical theory, and light was well understood classically long before SRT. It is quantum mechanics which introduced a new picture of light. And it didn't confuse our understanding, but improved it, in many ways.

I'm not surprised you are confused, but don't assume that because you are confused, trained physicists must also be confused.

For example I even question the very nature of "distance" as it normally referred to and hold the lightly held belief that distance is an illusion derived by having mass of three dimmensions in what is in effect, 2 dimensional space.

Fine, but I would ask:

1. Why do you question it? What information do you think is inconsistent with our normal concept of distance?
2. How are your ideas an improvement? What useful outcomes do we get from your ideas?

Of the tests of SR and GR, all of them have confirmed them to a high degree. The tests that havent been done cannot be counted against them.

Of the tests of MacM's water freezing and boiling theory, there have been 1000's of tests to confirm that water boils at 212 F. MacM theory is batting 1000. None of the tests have disproven his theory. :eek: :bugeye:

Did you even read my response to QQ? I tried not to. Sorry - but then, I didn't read QQ's post either.

Aer,

I know for a fact that you are not this anal. What's the problem?

I am only holding SR to the same standards as I would any other theory.

Ok.

Guys Guys Guys, I never intended to suggest that there is somesort of conspiracy, political or scientific. I never intended to insult the intelligences of those reading or actively engaged in scientific research. My post was about my own concerns with SRT as I see them.
Of course it is accepted that my concerns may be unjustified due to my own ignorance, a sort of paranoia if you will, concerns based on an illusion of potential error.

My apologies if I have inadvertantly fired up your concerns about my esteem for you.

Of course physicists would love to be able to get up there and make a speech on global TV......and of course they also are conservative in what they say or do....money and all that.....

But this dosn't point to conspiracy but in fact a healthy knowledge market place.

I just wished to share my concerns whether founded or not that the very nature of what we are dealing with, has various potentials that may inhibit, due to it's area of endeavour, progress due to our own complacency. By complacency I mean a sense of comfort that we have it right when in fact this is not the case [ as any physicist will quite happilly say.]
If you re-read my post with out thinking that I am attacking SRT I feel you will get a better understanding of what I am attempting to share. I am certainly not attacking SRT nor am I attacking physicists. Maybe your own paranoia is showing.......

QQ,

I'm in quite the foul mood tonight. Sorry.

I just get extremely tired of the subcurrent that often runs through here (not you necessesarily) that scientists (physicists) are something other than normal folks doing their jobs. They even drink beer after work sometimes - I've seen it!

Nevertheless, I disagree with the general ambience of your post.

OK superluminal,
Length contraction? This is observed in MMX experiments. Length contraction was the explaination offered by Lorentz to explain why the "Ether" could not be detected. This was debunked by Einstein with his "Special Relativity" which says that no "Ether" exists.

Length contraction has never been observed by experiment to the best of my knowledge. I can refer to others that claim the same (non-cranky others).

No ether, but length contraction still happening. And the Lorentz length contraction formula is correct. It was Lorentz's ether explanation that was thrown out the window.

Edit: Maybe not. I can't find a good reference to length contraction in an experiment. Shit.

No ether, but length contraction is still what's happening. Length contraction is required with Einstein's Relativity - but it has never been observed directly. Most direct observations are those of time dilation.

Time Dilation - confirmed.
Length Contraction - unconfirmed.
Relativity of Simultaneity - unconfirmed.
Reciprocity - unconfirmed.

What other predictions of special relativity have been confirmed?