Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Shear self-serving babble and not one ounce of rebuttal in physics terms. Just "But my mommy said so" doesn't cut it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wait no more you giant fool.

It doesn't take long to see that 1326, 1338 & 1341 are all flip-flops from 1131.

You are right I do NOT believe in length contraction of space. But it was you that said there was no such claim in SR.

Don't you dare attempt to twist what I have said. I posted the diagrams and mathematics proving that if you assert length contraction causes time dilation it is false because physically under length contraction clocks "WOULD" tick in sync. I further stated that since that was inconsistant with empirical data it proves length contraction is false and does not caue time dilation. I have clearly stated that time dilation of clocks is fact.

Because yu said theoryvdid not claim these things. What you want to now pretend you didn't say that either?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Liar - distorter. see 1131 above.

You haven't proven jack shit. You have recited SR and followed SR math procedures to produce SR results.

No but

......___TT___...._RT_
v = 0.5e / 0.5t = d / t

DOES.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

quote]Originally posted by James R:

1067

Say the distance between A and B is 100 kilometres according to the "resting" observer and the traveller's speed is 100 kilometres per hour. Then, the resting observer will measure the round-trip time to be 2 hours. The travelling observer says the distance between A and B is 50 km, and points A and B travel at 100 km/hr in the travelling observer's frame of reference. The round-trip time in this case will be 1 hour.

When the two observers get back together and compare clocks, they find that for the SAME TRIP (i.e. round-trip from A to B to A), the resting observer's clock has ticked off 2 hours, while the travelling observer's clock has ticked off 1 hour.[/quote]

Everybody note that James R's diagram is precisely the same as my diagram and shows clearly the resultsof v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

That is going 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time has both clocks ticking in sync. Hence when TT returns home RT's clcok must agree with TT's 60 minutes and the assertion that RT measures 120 minutes is shear fabrication and is falsified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you do the Lorentz transforms you get the results which we measure in Nature. How much more 'real' do you want?

No, you just claim to be throwing us your intellectual scraps and to have solved the world energy crisis. But yet you're reduced to arguing on forums.

Relating to the fusion device? You admitted you had none. And notice how I was talking about the fusion device? I know it's a struggle but try to keep up.

Physics correctly predicts what we observe in Nature, with regards to time dilation. What more needs to be said?

Physics correctly predicts what we observe in Nature, with regards to time dilation. What more needs to be said?

Still waiting for you to post the physical dimensions of the muon and electron. Are you struggling?

 

What about reciting SR or it's procedures do NOT prove the theory. What about tht do you not understand.

Your transforms do not alter the basic physical facts at hand. Length contraction does not produce time dilation. Length contraction shows both clocks are ti king in sync. That falsifies the SR assertion that the clocks record different times for the same trip.

End of discusion.

 

To All onlookers:

I hope you can recall my post about "DoubleThink".

DoubleThink is a mental condition , a defect where people afflicted believe two completely contridictary things about reality at the same time and cannot understand the confliction.

********************* James R's Posts ***********************

1131
But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

1341 James R's reply:

In your dreams only. It has nothing to do with time dilation, as I've already explained 5 times in detail to you.

1326
I never said length contraction produced time dilation. Your mind is going.


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

There can be no more clear evidence that James R suffers from this mental defect. We should all feel sorry for him but do not fall sucker to his dillusions.

In his post above he states:

Yet in one he says you can't have time dilation without length contraction, in the other he says length contraction has nothing to do with time dilation. Further in 1126 he denies even having said these sorts of things.

Still he insists they are not in conflict. He in fact follows the precise pattern and has the symptoms of a "DoubleThinker" he jumps through hoops to justify his conflicting beliefs. - :shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He has recently challenged me to post proof he has flip-flopped. I did so in spades and now here we are again. More flip-flops and lies.

James R is afflicted people. Take that into consideration anytime you read something he has asserted. He cannot be trusted to tell you the truth. He lies but can only call his opponent a liar. Sad actually really sad. When you tell constant lies itv is hard to remember what you said and you eventually get caught don't you James.

His is a case of "I am right and you have to believe I'm right because I say so". He is so inconsistant on virtually any issue I raise it must be clear by now what his problem is.

I know he got his degree from a Cracker Jacks box.

 

As usually MacM you simply are not capable of logical thought, or even of following it when James has explained (as I have too) that both time dilation and space contraction come from the two basic postulates and neither "causes" or "produces" the other.

Perhaps a 3 grade level analogy of this will help you understand:

From the postualtes of simple math these two facts, "a" and "b" follow:
(a): 1 + 2 = 3
and
(b): 2 + 3 = 5
Neither is the cause of the other as both follow from the postulates of math.

James has shown that one (time dilation) can not be true without the other (space contraction) being true also.

In the math example above to show this, one makes use of

1 + 1 = 2 and the math fact that equals subtracted from equals results in equals.

Ie. starting with "b" (or time dilation) we have:
(2 + 3) -(1 +1) = 5 - 2 = 3
but the left side of the above equation is also (1 + 2) and the right side is 3. Or 1 + 2 = 3 which is (a).

So "a" (or space contraction) must be true if "b" (or time dilation) is true.

I.e. from the math proof James gave in his link, time dilation can only be true if space contraction is true.
That follows the same way math logic shows (1 + 2 = 3) can only be true if (2 + 3 = 5) is true also.

This proof that both must be true does not mean (as you misunderstand) that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3) nor does the fact that (time dilation) is true cause the fact that (space contraction) is true.

Surely at this third grade level you can now understand that James never said one caused the other - Unless you think that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3). James only proved that one can not be false if the other is true.

To others, I admit by taking my time to post this, I am giving MacM credit for being able to understand third grade logic. - that may be my mistake.

 

Since you choose to continue the BS and not address the real issue of the physics involved, I'll not waste time responding to your irrelevant crap.

FYI: And others here is what James R said:

Clearly these two statements are diameterically opposed.

Your inability to understand that is because you too have shown you suffer the same "DoubleThink' mental defect.

You claim nothing physical changes during relative velocity but correctly claim time dilation is physically real. So you have a view which operates on magic. No physical cause results in one clock losing time while the other which shares the common relative velocity is unaffected. Great mental power in that view.

Then he lies about what he has inferred.

Now either address the issue of get lost.

 

Why am I not surprized? You do not understand even the third grade logic in post 1369. Nor do you make any attempt to respond to the dozen of so errors you made in only one post, which I pointed out in my post 1329. Your are only capable of name calling or ignoring, not logical reply even at third grade level!

This thread should be closed as you do not discuss, but only repeatedly assert the same false "MacM facts."

 

I'll simply note that you and James continue to repeat the same lame SR assertions without any supporting empirical data. Until you overturn my view using valid physics it will remain my view.

Considering you have had several weeks now to actually address the issue and won't then I suspect you are unable to do so.

Just to keep the record straight: You have not pointed out any actual errors in my posts but have posted distorted versions of my post of your own making and have merely recited SR or others that advocate SR as being proof of something.

Let me suggest the issue is rather clear: Length(spatial) contraction does NOT cause or contribute to time dilation. Only physical clock tick rate dilation does and you reject any physical changes. A view impossible to justify where things happen selectively and by magic.

Question do you still put a fallen tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy or wait anxiously for Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?

BTW: I was posting some added text while you posted you may want to go back and re-read my prior post.

 

Again, totally false. NO distorion and NO quote of others. NO reciting of SR.
Here are the facts, starting with your post 1321:

How is this a distortion? Who have I quoted? It is exact copy from your post, but with the next three false points and remainder omitted. (In my post 1329 I already reproduce all of your post 1321 nonsense and did not want to “double post.”) I did correct your miss-spellings in the earlier copies so they were not exact.
Is correction of your spelling “my distortion” ?

I now again repost part of my 1329 reply to above, showing why these two statement of yours are false. As shown in 1329, all five of your points and about 5 other statements in your post 1321 are equally false and /or stupid, but still with no logical reply from you. (I do not consider your calling them “crap” to be a logical reply.)

I'm still waiting for a logical reply or admission that you were wrong on ALL FIVE of your suggested alternatives as to why the muons reach the surface of the Earth as predicted by SR and confirmed and showing that reciprocity does apply.

 

This is my thread when you respond to the issue I raise with a valid physics post I'll consider addressing (correcting once again) your nonsense. Not before. Address the issue or get lost.

 

He had it explained at least twice by me earlier for you:

Then again in post 1369 I reduced it down to third grade level logic in simply analogy:

I think (and hope) you will close the thread as MacM will never admit he is wrong and probably does not think he is, as third grade logical thought is too hard for him.

 

You have to be kidding. After all the false slanderous bullshit you have tried to spread about me and you want an apology?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have done nothing but prove you have "DoubleThink" symptoms. You flip-flop not just here but in prior cases which I also posted example of dealing with GPS.

Save your attempt to save face. You said first that there can be no time dilaton without length contraction, then you said length contraction has nothing to do with time dilation.

That is "DoubleThink " double talk. Regardless of any technical verbal definitions you and SR have claimed that the traveling twin is younger because he traveled less distance at the same relative velocity. I have proven that is a false assertion. You can continue to ignore or deny that is the case but that is just part of your "DoubleThink" symptoms.

I will make no apology or retractions for exposing the truth. I posted your statements precisely as you posted them. Just because you are now embarassed and want to waffel and weave some excuses doesn't cut it.

I cannot do that for a number of reason.

1 - You have lied many times and mostly about me, my education, my experience, my understandings, etc, etc. You need to learn that what goes around has a way of coming around. You have stuck your foot in your mouth extract it yourself.

2 - You have deliberately lied about things you claim I have said or believe. You have distorted my posts and argued against your own fabricated stupid assertions and have tried to attach them to me.

Don't hold your breath. And don't threaten me. You want to ban me go a head because you are showing your true self. Unable to respond with actual physics,your attack tatic failing, you only have left the pen which is mighter than a sword so they say.

What those that preach that don't understand is the truth is mighter than that and you are finished here. Your credability is shot.

Your whinning about being caught makes me puke. It is time you actually consider that v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t mandates re-evaluation of your postulates or of the possibility of an absolute frame.

 

Up yours too Billy T. I'm wrong when I'm wrong and you damn sure haven't posted anything showing I am wrong. BTW: You dind't answer about the tooth fairy, Santa Clause or Easter Bunny yet.

No physical cause is required to produce a permanent physical result - What a load of ignorant crap. You pathetic piece of egotistical, narcistic garbage.

I'll only say one thing you are worse than James R. James R at least has some simulance of education you don't.

You blab on forever with ridiculus bullshit and then claim you have proven something. You have not. You are nothing but a big blob of hot air.

 

Yes you have 21 hours to show your true colors. Unable to provide a valid physics rebuttal you are now perched to cutoff the issue. Others will see how lopsided this place is.

If one does not embrace your view then they are subjected to being slandered, personally attacked, insulted or ignored.

Well FYI you have been caught flip-flopping and lying with your pants down now twice in recent weeks. Live with it because it is not going to change.

Like the title to this thread states it is my last relativity thread here. Likely my last thread period. so-be -it. I have made my point loud and clear inspite of your efforts to confuse others.

Einstein's view only works under some conditions as long as you turn a blind eye to actual physics. Relativity is mandated by emprical data but it is not Einstein's relativity that is physically real.

I don't feel sorry for you you are old enough to know better but I do feel sorry for all those students you claim to be corrupting.

Hopefully based on the readership of this thread (67% of the total for this sub-forum) people out there are interested. I'll also note that your thread UniKEF Analysis in Physics and Math, intended to discredit me has received 55% of the readership of that sub-forum.

So when I'm gone you should have plenty of time to spread your BS.

If you thought putting my threads in this sub-forum would mitigate the impact you were wrong. People can see the validity of my charge and they are following you and Billy's futile attempt to overturn it.

I do appreciate having had the opportunity to consider all the twists and turns that relativists use to dodge facing the enevitable truth and to narrow down the proveable falicies about SR. My book is in the proof reading stage right now.

Give me an address and I'll send you a signed complimentary copy. It is entitled

"Falsification of Special Relativity".


CASE 1:

Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8


Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4

A dilated clock matches emperical data and predictions of Special Relativty.

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

CASE 2:
.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clocks tick in synch when distance traveled = 50% and accumulated time = 50%.

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B........................ ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3............4

This replicates the assertion by SR that the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance and accumulates 1/2 the amount of time. What it shows is that when that happens both clocks tick in unison (are accumulating the same amount of time) and hence the resting twin's clock must display the same time as the traveling twin upon his return.

The assertion by SR that the resting twin accumulates more time is not supported by basic physics. It is a false assertion to cause the math to fit preconcieved ideas about the postulates and absence of an absolute rest frame.

Length contraction does not cause nor allow the traveling twin to return younger. It matters not what Lorentz Transformations predict they are mere math procedures based on the assumtions and the assumptions are falsified.

The only process that works is physical clock tick rate dilation (Case 1) but then you must formalize a new theoretical foundation for relativity.

Have a nice day twit.