Mac's Final Relativity Thread

if you would care to post to the relevant thread BillyT I'll posts the post numbers for you there...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, Einstein referred to handling accelerations through frame switching in his original 1905 paper. I was just reading it last night.

No, the symmetry is broken from the very start. From the astronaut's point of view, the journey to the beacon is a shorter distance than what his Earthbound twin measures. Same for the journey home. For the return trip, from Earth's POV it seems their clock is synchronized with the beacon and they started timing the return trip as soon as the twin started heading home. From the twin's POV, Earth's clock is ticking slow, but Earth also started timing the return trip before the astronaut reached the beacon, i.e. they "cheated" and will ultimately measure more time as having elapsed. Einstein knew this all in 1905, to him it was so obvious he didn't even need to consider accelerations, the coordinate change itself contains all the necessary information.

And like I say, there's nothing wrong with the SR solution he gave in 1905. There's no ambiguity to the problem whatsoever, no matter what coordinate frame you choose to be stationary. From this point on, if you want to demonstrate that an ambiguity exists without GR, you'll have to set up some coordinate systems and show me how applying the Lorentz transformations leads to two contradictory results without further assumptions. Otherwise I'm not going to argue about the results of a calculation neither of us has done (here), I've already shown plenty of calculations and examples.

His attempt to stabilize the universe didn't work anyhow. A little nudge either way sends it rapidly inflating or else catastrophically collapsing according to his own calculations.

Like I say, Fizeau. Michelson and Morley also duplicated the experiment with an improved apparatus. From what I've read, Einstein didn't even know about this experiment until after it was published, so if that's actually true it would be even more impressive.

And if it turned out the Earth had actually been moving with velocity "w" the whole time as seen by observer "C", C's measurements (and later direct verification) would all show that the astronaut who left Earth returned substantially younger than his twin.

Oh, but I do claim it's physical reality, insofar as physical reality is based on what you can sense, perceive, interact with and measure. I even gave a scheme by which each astronaut could, in principle, prove that the other one has a slower ticking clock. The question of whose clock was started first or whose clock ticks faster depends entirely on the reference frame from which you choose to answer these questions.

The two astronauts were parked next to each other, then one of them turned on his rocket engines for a while. But the results would actually be the same even if the other one turned on his engines, or both of them turned on their engines and cranked it to different thrust levels. They don't even have to fire their rockets in the same direction, their accelerations could be perpendicular. All that matters is that they have a stable relative speed at some point in the distant future when both of them have run out of fuel or otherwise turned their engines off.

That doesn't explain anything at all. I already said it doesn't matter how the particles got up to speed in the first place. You produce them, you get them up to a certain speed by one means or another, you wait for them to cross a certain starting line, then you measure how many of them make it past a series of checkpoints, in order to measure their average rate of decay. It doesn't matter where you put the starting line, pick any point you want in the accelerator, and any particles passing that line will have statistical lifetimes from that point on which depend only on what their velocity is after they cross the starting line (there are no accelerations performed on the particles after they cross this line, and even somewhat beforehand).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm saying that in the example I just gave where both astronauts keep going and don't return, it doesn't matter who turned on their engines or for how long. Once both astronauts have shut down their engines and are moving at a constant velocity with respect to each other, the time dilation effects will be exactly as I described, and will only depend on relative velocity.

No, I understood you to be asking what is physically causing clocks to dilate, and so my answer is that there is something in the structure of space and time which causes this to happen. But one should not expect to be able to look at space and time for distortions to determine an absolute frame of rest, because the effects of spacetime's structure will manifest themselves differently in different reference frames. The original motivation for relativity comes from electrodynamics. Maxwell's equations can only work properly in one specifically preferred rest frame, unless you ditch the concept of absolute space and time altogether. It wouldn't make much sense to think that for the last several centuries as we discovered the laws of electromagnetism, the Earth just happened to be centered in this perfectly stationary rest frame the whole time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so do you believe quoting a theory is sufficient as evidence for Causality?
[ I am deliberately taking the negative view because this is how your response appears on the surface]

 

????? I have no thread. But I thanked you for this link :

to one where I expected you to define the problem of the $100 challenge, but in your first post (post 3) there I found:
1. Science has yet to prove that distance exists across vaccum of space with out a time needed. if t=0 then d=0 thus light has no-where to travel.
2. That there is no ability to differentiate light from the reflector mass [ matter] that is used to detect it, thus light could [is] purely be a mass inertia [resonance] event across zero distance. The existence of matter allows the zero distance to have spaciality but no actual distance.
3. That if this is the case then the universal constants of gravity and inertia can be seriously investigated. [causation and not just effects]
4. That the development of worm holes, gateways and entanglements are very possible and as far as I am concerned quite real.

(1) Seems to me to be hopelessly confused or not understand that all science, even mathematics starts by assuming the existence / validity of some basic set of facts (usually call axioms) The existence of 3D space and time being basic axioms, but open for physics to try to describe. Another axiom is that miracles are not allowed in physics - i.e. the same results can be expected if conditions are repeated exactly (noting that in QM's case "results" is a distributribution of happenings). etc. Physic does not attempt to prove space /time exist - that is axiomatic. Physics tries to learn things about space time. A lot of progress has been made - but to even "come up to speed" of a few decades ago you need to be very proficient with tensor math.

(3 ) & (4) require much more facility with tensor math than I ever had. Best I could do was to follow a derivation in it. Not do anything original or creative with it. I once spent ~2 hours to make it down about two inches of tensor math in a PHY.REV. Section D article, as I recall. I sure you cannot even read out loud a tensor equation, much less understand what it is stating. (The extremely compact notation has many unstated conventions, such as repeating the same subscript indicates a summation over it.)

So free of nonsense, that leave only your (2) where you are clearly wrong in the first sentence. And not clear about anything in the second, which seems to state in the converse: Without matter existing “zero distance” has “spatiality” but: is no distance / is without distance/ etc. This is either the extremely trivial and true: “Zero distance” is not any distance OR something unintelligible like “one hand clapping.”

Where is here your challenge defined in that (or any other thread) – give a link or at least the post number.

When you will not even answer a “this or that” one of two choices question, now asked four times, it is a little much to expect me to wade thru 399 posts in an old thread looking for a post where you have defined you challenge differently than as quoted by James in post 321 of this thread (without any mention of “vacuum”).

 

BIlly this thread is devoted to MacM's last relativity thread..ok?
You got a problem with that then take it up with a moderator.
I have posted a list of relevant posts at the correct thread
I'll repeat the link again:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91797&page=21

It'll take you directly to the last post to that thread made a few moments ago.

 

I believe in cause and effect because all evidence points towards it.

 

Hey Billy, just to let you know... I think it's silly to make these kinds of $100 bets, as your experience shows. Noone ever pays up. It just results in childish arguments over who's right and who's wrong, with the only determination of wrong being when the person committing the fallacy finally admits to it. Kind of like when two kids are playing soldier, one goes "I shot you! I shot you!" and the other's all "No you didn't! Nuh uh! You missed my shoulder and hit the door!"

 

you ever heard of the psychologcal term : relational psychosis?

I just mentioned that because on two occassions now both question and answer do not have direct relationships...

Answer:

and

your answer:

and....

your answer:

so whats wrong CptBork....I know you are a better thinker that that?

 

Excuse me, are you calling me psychotic?

The problem is your questions are poorly phrased, and I'm having a tough time understanding what you're even going on about. So I'm trying to make educated guesses as to how to decipher you.

 

No that takes me to the OP by geistkiesel. Which does not contain the work vacuum either.

I will be happy to have all my posts related to your $100 challenge PLUS post 321 where James quotes your statement of the challenge (the one without any use of the word vacuum) to a new thread.
Why not answer the simple question I have repeatedly asked? The answer takes less than half a line as all I ask is if two simple quantities are equal or not.

 

No relational psychosis is a psychotic state that presents itself between two person or more...totally dysfuncytion in extremes and partially dysfunctional in minor occassions such as this.
The questions are fairly clear. The focus is Causality and it is causality that is not being addressed.

 

Well either you don't understand my replies, or I didn't understand your questions.

 

ok ...lets just leave it for the moment and take it up later if relevant...to do so.

 

I know that. In fact in the very first post related to the challenge, I said two thing (not quoting):
(1) I think I can do that.{see post 359, near end telling that I had measured length of photons.}
(2) I doubt if I will be paid for doing so. {see post 361}

PS - I was correct on both.
PS2 - I like to teach - why my posts tend to be long. Why I like MacM and QQ - they are foils that provide the opportunity. There are other readers who can and do learn. Many have thanked me, both publicly and by PM. I'll bet even you and James have learned at least something for my post 374 and others. Perhaps how to measure the length of photons? or where reciprosity does actually fail and why {in low light photography} and how to fix it? etc.

 

try the last post of the thread as that is where you will find your post reference numbers as I said earlier...

 

do you want to be correct Billy T or do you want to be wrong?
make up your mind....
The challenge isn't just there for you you know....or did you think it was?
I am thinking seriously about building a web site community to build the prize pool and off it over the net....[ I do build web sites for a living you know or didn't you? - cost me nothing to launch a web compaign]

 

I looked at your proof and I agree it's very convincing, it demonstrates a dependence on the spatial position of each mirror, and hence the path length travelled by the photon. But if QQ is saying prove each photon passes through the points between various detector apparatii, well... that's like asking for proof that life is real and we're not all living in The Matrix. Hey I'll award you $100 myself, just because I think it's a very nice proof you gave. But I'm paying it out in Zimbabwean dollars.

 

see I told you I thought you were a good thinker....

The point is that there is no evidence that CAN be shown to support the 2nd posulates "travel at 'c' through vacuum" requirement. Certainly none so far has been given.
And because of the bun fight with that other poster I just threw up the $100 usd challenge to see how many balls he's got and sadly he aint got any.

What this means is that an alternative version of the postulate is possible or should I more correctly say an alternative theory is possible to describe the CAUSATION of the light effects observed including all the effects observed as supplied by Billy T's refererences.

So Zimbabwe welcomes it's new migrant....

 

you have no idea how close that remark actually is philosophically to the truth....