All of you look over the Proposed Test of SR thread and see if Pete full filled his ob;ligation to provide data to support his view. My data and that of Pete's (SR calculations) actually prove my point but rather than admit that I et therun around and then JR as usual makes some snide remark and locks the thread.

WHAT A CROCK. I really hope one day you realize your bias is wasted effort. Your conduct does not alter the fact that YOU fail to support your view and I do. Say whatever the hell you want I will not reply or be back.

MacM,

In that thread, you dismissed all of Pete's careful objections and explanations on the basis that they didn't suit your gut feelings about the universe. You gave up on trying to refute his arguments, most likely because you could not do so.

In addition, when Pete exposed your lack of understanding of basic kinematics, your only response was to label his comments as off topic "innuendo" (which is the word you always pull out of the locker whenever anybody has the temerity to question your knowledge of basic physics).

I closed the thread because you and Pete had reached an impasse. You are obviously unwilling to discuss your misconceptions or learn anything new. And Pete cannot be expected to somehow get through to someone who has no desire to learn.

The conversation reached a natural end, so I closed the thread.

When you are willing to discuss your misconceptions, rather than just complain at anybody daring to disagree with you by telling them to "address the issue", when in fact they are already directly addressing your "issues" already, then I suggest you start a new thread.

Alternatively, you could just disappear off to and find some friends who will just agree with whatever you say. That appears to be what you really want, after all.

MacM,

In that thread, you dismissed all of Pete's careful objections and explanations on the basis that they didn't suit your gut feelings about the universe. You gave up on trying to refute his arguments, most likely because you could not do so.

Yada Yada Yada. I said I would not respond further but that does not apply to conversation about how this site is managed and the inappropriate tatics employed by moderators, and even other members, that prefer to be in the "In Crowd", etc.


I hope all you folks realize what is going on here. More false accusations and innuendo. Nothing James has just said is factual.

Look carefully. Pete and I basically get the same results. So how is it that I reject his work.

NO. I reject his conclusion. He claims SR is correct and that mere "Relative Velocity" is a cause of physical change.

I reject that conclusion because his and my data show that ONLY the most accelerated clock over time is dilated, even though all clocks share a common "Relative Velocity" and period.

There can be NO question on this issue but James, Pete and others continue to refuse to address that issue and then start their campaign of personal insults and assaults then close the tread without actually ever meeting their obligation to respond to the issue.

Now either produce data showing my position is in error (not just your false verbal innuendo but data showing tha "B" & "C" have accumulated less time than "A") or shut the hell up.

Don't come back with "You miss apply SR, swithing frames controls who loses time". Because switching frames is a lame verbal side step considering that the only way to switch frames is to accelerate.

Further more even that is over and above "Mere Relative Velocity". When you qualify who loses time you circumvent the mere relative velocity condition of the "Equality of inertial frames" advocated by SR.

those 3 clocks... for the past 5 years... OMG

those 3 clocks... for the past 5 years... OMG


Yep. Another innuendo response from a member but NO data to support their position. Keep them coming. Thanks for helping me make my point.

"..you can never engage in a meaningful discussion of Einstein's relativity unless you have a common understanding of 17th century relativity."

I think that SciForums has a more liberal approach to discussion of these things than other boards. I can't speak for James, but if I see some worthwhile discussion to be had (even if the premise of the thread is not based on good science), it will generally remain alive. Only after it is clear that there is no intelligent discourse to be had does the thread die. Conversely, I will kill a thread outright if I see no redeeming value. I didn't follow the discussion in that thread, but I feel confident that James made the correct decision.

I did read the discussion and I agree with James' action.

if you have a problem, you deal with it directly.

And that means everything, MacM

The thread was only closed at the point where MacM refused to discuss any more. As I said, an impasse had been reached at which point neither Pete nor MacM was going to budge from his position.

"..you can never engage in a meaningful discussion of Einstein's relativity unless you have a common understanding of 17th century relativity."


You are obligated to exlain to readers how it is that your comments in any way substitute for data that supports "Equality of inertial frames". IT DOES NOT.

I have presented a hypothetical test. YOUR side has failed to produce evidence to support your conclusions. That is the reality here.

I think that SciForums has a more liberal approach to discussion of these things than other boards. I can't speak for James, but if I see some worthwhile discussion to be had (even if the premise of the thread is not based on good science), it will generally remain alive. Only after it is clear that there is no intelligent discourse to be had does the thread die. Conversely, I will kill a thread outright if I see no redeeming value. I didn't follow the discussion in that thread, but I feel confident that James made the correct decision.

I actually agree with you as to termination of the thread. I do have to disagree with the erroneous basis he claimed for doing so. That is I posted a clearly stated test. My data and Pete's are basically identical yet HE is unable to post supporting data for HIS conclusions. I support my conclusions.

Therefore to claim the thrread is being locked because I do not understand or that because I have rejected HIS "Good Work" is assinine. I didn't reject his work. I reject his conclusion because they are not supported by his or my data.

I did read the discussion and I agree with James' action.


See reply to Ben above. Correct action, wrong basis.

if you have a problem, you deal with it directly.

And that means everything, MacM



??????


Directly.... Cyber... Thread Closed.....

The thread was only closed at the point where MacM refused to discuss any more. As I said, an impasse had been reached at which point neither Pete nor MacM was going to budge from his position.

I only refused to not insist that Pete provide data to support his position. HE failed to do so. So yes the thread was at an end but not because I did anything wrong.

People have to realise what goes on here.

The issue is the SR claim of "Equality of inertial frames" and the demand that I do some calculation using "Switching of frames" or "Simultaneity" is outside the scope of the issue and the claim of the theory.

Yes there are mathematics that resolve the (3) clock issue and produce a correct result that agrees with emperical data.

BUT THAT SOLUTION VIOLATES THE VERY EQUALITY OF INERTIAL FRAMES CLAIM OF THE THEORY.

That is the issue and it is NOT that I don't understand. I do understand. That is why I am trying to get others to realize that the theory as used in of itself demonstrates the falicy of the theory.

Relativity is real. SR has utility but the basis of the theory are invalid and it cannot be applied as advocated. You MUST consider acceleration (frame switching) to get good results and that demonstrates that inertial frames ARE NOT equal.

It in fact suggests some form of absolute motion causes physical change NOT mere relative motion.

Relative motion is an AFFECT of one frame experiencing acceleration (F=ma) and not a CAUSE of physical change because both frames experience the same relative motion and only one frame changes.

THAT IS IT IN A NUT SHELL AND NOT ONE PHYSICIST - RELATIVISTS - CAN JUSTIFY IGNORING THAT FACT.


Anyone believing otherwise is under an obligation to produce just one case where equaity of frames has been demonstrated.

I hope all you folks realize what is going on here.

Don't worry, I'm sure they know what's really going on here.

Don't worry, I'm sure they know what's really going on here.

Just one more relativists non-responsive innuendo. Just where do you get the idea that this in any way provides data to support your view?

It doesn't. That IS what is REALLY going on here.

Just one more relativists non-responsive innuendo. Just where do you get the idea that this in any way provides data to support your view?

It doesn't. That IS what is REALLY going on here.

At least I finally got you to use the word correctly. That actually was an innuendo.
That was my only intent here. (though I must admit, it was a little like shooting fish in a barrel, as you were likely to call anything I wrote an innuendo.)

At least I finally got you to use the word correctly. That actually was an innuendo.
That was my only intent here. (though I must admit, it was a little like shooting fish in a barrel, as you were likely to call anything I wrote an innuendo.)

Nope and I would really rather see you post the requested data or admit there is none. Other comments about how SR is used (computing using frame swictching), etc or attacking the poster's knowledge, etc are not responsive to the issue.

Hi Mac,
James is right - that thread is done. I don't think he should have locked it (I almost asked him to undo that action), but it makes no difference anyway because I had no intention of replying. I had (and have) nothing more to add to the conversation - and neither, it seems, do you.

One more thing -
This is the right forum for voicing your objection to the thread's closure.
It is *not* the right forum for continuing the thread's discussion.

Hi Mac,
James is right - that thread is done. I don't think he should have locked it (I almost asked him to undo that action), but it makes no difference anyway because I had no intention of replying. I had (and have) nothing more to add to the conversation - and neither, it seems, do you.

One more thing -
This is the right forum for voicing your objection to the thread's closure.
It is *not* the right forum for continuing the thread's discussion.

It really does amaze me that you folks get right up against the wall and can't respond with data but will NEVER admit you have none or that relative velocity was NOT the cause of the recorded changes.

My objection isn't to the closure but to the false innuendo asserting that it was I that don't understand relativity and declined to accept your work was the basis. I never rejected your work, we get comperable results but I reject your conclusions because you do not and can not produce data to support them.

So this is the correct issue to be discussed, if the reason for the closure was my ineptitude, as he suggested before cutting off my ability to respond, then you and HE are obligated to post the data showing where I was wrong.

It is ludricrus to post negative comments about a poster's understanding but then not post data showing where that understanding is in error.

NOW LETS SEE SOME ACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM I WAS WRONG AND DON'T UNDERSTAND AND THAT MERE REATIVE VELOCITY CAUSES PHYSICAL CHANGE.

THE CORRECT BASIS FOR CLOSURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN "MACM" HAS POSED A VALID QUESTION AND "PETE" IS DECLINING TO POST DATA SUPPORTING HIS CLAIMS AND INSTEAD CONTINUES TO POST MATHEMATICAL ARGUEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT GERMAIN TO THE ISSUE RAISED. THE ISSUE WAS SOLEY THE SR CLAIM THAT ALL INERTIAL FRAMES ARE EQUAL AND MERE "RELATIVE VELOCITY" CAUSES PHYSICAL CHANGE BUT THE ARGUEMENTS POSTED BY PETE INVOLVE COMPUTATION OF WHO SWITCHED FRAMES (ACCELERATED) WHICH BREAKS THE SYMMETRY AND VIOLATES THE EQUALITY OF FRAMES CLAIM.

NOW LETS SEE SOME ACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM I WAS WRONG AND DON'T UNDERSTAND AND THAT MERE REATIVE VELOCITY CAUSES PHYSICAL CHANGE.

Required data are in abundance to validate SR.

Here is one from Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, CA observation on tau.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

Not that I hope this would change your idea about SR, but you asked for ACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT how relativistic velocity puts things in different worldlines while nothing changes physically in the respective rest frame realms.

MaC, don't you get bored of all this ? Or do you get bored all the time ?

It is ludricrus to post negative comments about a poster's understanding but then not post data showing where that understanding is in error.
Your understanding of relativity at the moment is a complete mess. If you can't show your own real initiative to learn the theory (this would require - gasp! - accepting that maybe it's not a coincidence that the same person who keeps finding "flaws" in relativity has never bothered with the Lorentz transformation), there isn't much anyone else can do for you.

Required data are in abundance to validate SR.

Here is one from Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, CA observation on tau.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html

Not that I hope this would change your idea about SR, but you asked for ACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT how relativistic velocity puts things in different worldlines while nothing changes physically in the respective rest frame realms.

MaC, don't you get bored of all this ? Or do you get bored all the time ?

Unbelievable. You post this like it is an answer. It makes NO reference to the equality of frames issues interms of physical change. It only refers to the "Illusion of Motion" measurements during relative motion.

Surely you understand this by now. THE ISSUE IS THE ACCUMULATEDTIME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CLOCKS ONCE COMPARED IN A COMMON REST FRAME - NOT WHILE IN MOTION.

The percieved dilation during motion does not alter clocks, it only alters perception of the clocks. WThe ONLY true dilation is the accumulated time difference once cojpared in a common rest frame.

Try again.

Your understanding of relativity at the moment is a complete mess. If you can't show your own real initiative to learn the theory (this would require - gasp! - accepting that maybe it's not a coincidence that the same person who keeps finding "flaws" in relativity has never bothered with the Lorentz transformation), there isn't much anyone else can do for you.


And you make false acqusations. My understanding seems at this juncture to be better then your own because the Lorentx Transformation deals with computing frames WHILE IN RELATIVE MOTION.

That is not, and has not been, at issue. I damn well understand the transformation issue and that it actually has little to do with the issue under consideration.

I think this complaint has been covered.

Discussion is now shifting to debating a physics topic, which is off-topic for this thread.

Closed.