Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Then describe it in 3 lines as I did without ASSUMING that there is only one Physical Time Dilation, PTD, and only one "common rest frame" in their prior history.

Here is my three line discription again:

My clocks A & B both start accelerating in the negative X direction exactly the same and away from their mutual rest position at origin of frame E, which I designate as E(0,0). While at rest in E, they have speed of Vce away from the distant point C(0,0) in frame C's positive X direction. After their common acceleration, when reaching C(100000,0), Clock B stops accelerating and coasts forever with speed VBc, but A begins to de-accelerate and comes to rest at C(0,0) where it remains.

I again note that you have assumed what you want to prove, namely by not always telling wrt what frame the PTD is measured. I.e. you assume there is only one PTD and chose a name to imply that, but that is not what SR states – only your assumption. THAT IS CIRCULAR REASONING.

I can only assume you have no reply but this "cop out" - "Your three lines and defined symbols are too tough for me to follow."
SYMBOLS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR MATHEMATICAL REASONING.
Anything else is just so much hand waving.

BTW is my memory failing or is your avatar lady rotating the other way now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, well while your description is still harder to follow but this is so much better than your multiple lengthy paragraphs versions I must compliment you.

Now let me repeat this in plain english. A & B are at rest in frame Eo,o. They both launch toward frame C which, you have failed to designate what that frame is with respect to frame E. Since it is not the same frame it must have relative velocity to E. Is it approaching or receeding and at what velocity.?

Now when B reaches 100,000,0, what inches, feet light years, it goes inertial forever passing Co,o but A decelerates to become at rest at Co,o.

Your superior scenario lacks completness to compute anything. You give no inertial velocities or durations of A, B or C. You know nothing about the history of C with respect to motion to A & B you have no way of predicting accurately what the end result is going to be.

B doesn't stop and any accumulated time as it passes Co,o must include velocity and duration to some common rest frame(s). Anyother prediction is BS based on unsupported math and untestable extrapolations.

Same with "A" it's accumulated time to Co,o depends on velocity and duration with respect to C including C's history to A&B and E. None of which is given.

I hope you now understand the failure of your scenarios. This is not a cop out. Anything you claim to be able to compute from this is BS and is unsupportable emperically.

Further I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by one "Physical Time Dilation" and how it relates to anything I may have said.

Please clarify what you are trying to say.

Ha nothing I have done it has always rotated clockwise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly, you're talking bout SR specifically, you're talking about Galileo's relativity. Do you claim that Galileo and Newton were wrong?

Secondly, the claim of relativity isn't really that either observer can claim to be at rest. The claim is that "at rest" is a relationship between things, not a property of anything. So, if the pilot assumes the plane is at rest, he is only assuming it is at rest relative a itself... not to the air, the ground, or anything else.

So why is that ludicrous, and why did you say that the pilot "would mathematically at least claim he must plummet"?

Galileo's relativity of motion is no more ludicrous than supposing that the Earth could be spinning on its axis and whizzing around the Sun without us feeling it. This is 400 year old stuff, Mac. Do you really want to burn Galileo?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You seem way off course here.

Agreed.

I didn't. QQ did. I have said if he only has a relative velocity closing rate he does not know his air speed and MAY plumet or begin to stall. Quite a different claim than your assertion here.

Never said or implied anything about relativity or Galileo, etc. I have merely stated the obvious if the pilot has no outside information but only relative velocity to another aircraft he does not know his airspeed hence if he is about to stall. He only knows he has not plummeting because he is not in free fall.

 

OH I see now you want to claim muons in a circular accelerator (non inertial condition) somehow prove SR. REALLY . Get real. Get on one side of the fence or the other.

Further more I have repeatedly stated the acceleration only provides the new velocity and have never claimed acceleration is the cause of dilation. The induced inertial velocity for some duration does, as does the integrated velocity change during acceleration but that is not an affect caused by the F of F = ma but by v = at. Read what I write and stop re-writing my posted claims.

As to the impressive list of testing.

1 - None are exclusive of other causes.

2 - None support or demonstrate reciprocity.

3 - None actually are based on relative velocity between clocks but are based on velocity to some former rest frame. i.e. the lab accelerator.

For cosmic muons the earth is the rest frame. Muon ansitrophy clearly shows that the earth is the resting frame since muon velocity is virtually symmetrical from all directions compared to the approaching velocity.

So to assert that the earth clock is dilated from the muon's frame is untested, untestable and unsupported by any emperical evidence. Failure of relativity to be testable in all it's claims falisifies it as a valid theory from the outset.

 

The question of whether the pilot can consider himself at rest is quite specifically a question of Galileo's relativity. SR makes no extra claim on that question than Galileo.
When you say that the pilot can not consider himself to be at rest, you are saying that Galileo was wrong.

You said in post 173 of this thread:

 

Are you agreeing that "at rest" is a relationship between things?
Are you agreeing that relativity states that "at rest" is a relationship between things?
Both? Or other?

 

Nope. I sid if he really considers himself at rest "Pragmatically he should consider himself plumeting.

Nothing wrong with what I posted. I said clearly I agreed with you but that in one sense (to assume he really were at rest then he would plumet).

Lets get pragmatic here. These are both Cessnas that need 125 Mph to not stall.

Even if he is measuring 250 Mph relative velocity he can't be sure that he or his buddy are ok, because he doesn't know if air (wind) is going the other way and he may actually only have 100 Mph air speed.

So assuming he is at rest over the earth he would have to assume 125 Mph head wind and his buddy would have to be pushing 250 Mph in his cessna to not be fallign out of the sky himself.

You are just trying to be cantankerous here.

 

Rest as with velocity must be relative to something. After all rest is v = 0 and ALL velocity is relative to something.

 

OK, now I follow what you mean. When you said "if he really considers himself at rest pragmatically he should consider himself plummeting", you meant "if he really considers himself at rest with respect to the ground pragmatically he should consider himself plummeting."

Yes, if he assumed he was at rest with respect to the ground, he should expect to be plummeting. Yes, such a claim would indeed be ludicrous. But, relativity doesn't suggest that he can make such a ludicrous assumption.

What relativity does suggest is this:

So, the pilot can consider himself at rest, and in doing so would naturally consider the air and ground to have a significant velocity to the rear. Right?

 

I didn't claim relativity made such suggestion, QQ did.

???? NO. I would assume the earth's surrrface and that unless I was trying to fly through a hurricane that I was in serious trouble -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Further how do you assume "to the rear". From your POV the rest means to not rotate with the planet which means you are now assuming he was flying west such that the passing earth and air are from his rear.

So what is your ret v=0 relative to? Not the earth!

 

You said: "If he had no other information then SR claims he can claim to be at rest which is (as is most of SR) ludicrous."

What claim do you think is ludicrous?

Well, if you choose to assume that, that's your problem, not relativity's.

Relativity says that if the pilot can consider the plane to be moving forward relative to the ground, then he can also consider the ground to be moving backward relative to the plane.

umwhat? You seem slipping back to thinking that "at rest" is a property of a thing, not a relationship between things.
When relativity says that the pilot can consider himself "at rest", it means at rest relative to himself. Not relative to the ground. Not relative to the air. Not relative to the anything else, unless given reason (ie the pilot clearly has god reason to consider himself at rest relative to his plane).

The pilot can consider himself at rest (relative to himself), and the pilot would naturally consider the air and ground to have a significant velocity to the rear (relative to himself).

That's what I'm saying. So, what claim of relativity do you say is ludicrous?

 

That he can arbitrarily claim to be at rest even though he has accelerated and has velocity. I know that inertial velocity is treated as rest in SR but that is the falicy that destroys SR.

That is why you must always consider who switched frames because what you are doing is rejecting the inertial velocity as being rest. You are now computing who has actual velocity even though he is inertial and according to you at rest.

Hardly. But I also stipulated at the outset that I don't see this as a relativity problem. Being airborne and claiming to be at rest is problematic since you are not defining what your rest v = 0 is relative to.

Just asserting I'm at rest is meaningless. But in keeping with the format if I assume I'm at rest then the earth is turning under me and the air is a wind rushing under my wings.

But the problem is given only the relative velocity to another aircraft you have no way of knowing your airspeed and therefor may well be stalling or falling.

Correct. As I have stated above but that doesn't solve an aerodynamic relationship.

How on earth do you come up with that? I just stated in plain english that rest is v = 0 and v is always relative to something.

Not a vialbe answer. Rest is v = 0 and v must be relative to something. In QQ's scenario it appears to be at rest relative to the other aircraft and that states nothing about the aerodynamics around his craft which is why I said I agreed with you but that he still had a minor point about the flight ability of his craft.

Why to the rear was my point? YOu have not explained your directional bias.

Most all but for now the assertion that any inertial observer can justly claim to be at rest. As pointed out that assumption leads to reciprocity of relavistic affects. Reciprocity has never been observered, measured or logically is even possible or possible to test.

Hence SR is falsified at the outset since it's claims are untestable.

 

MacM: I do not give any particular numerical value for the relative speed of the frames. You are free to choose any you like. I.e. I use algebraic symbols for everything to cover ALL POSSIBLE CASES.

No, their relative speed is Vce. That and their relative geometries and their directions of motion is all given in post 118, in great detail and several times in different ways as follows:

And twice more again as:

But as you did not like to read that much, so in post 198 I put much of this into one sentence of my three line scenario description as follows:

I do not give any particular numerical value for the relative speed of the frames or the scale units of X. You are free to choose any you like. Ie. That X=100000 could be 100000 miles, meters, light seconds, etc. I.e. I use algebraic symbols to cover ALL POSSIBLE CASES.

I admit that in post 198, unlike post 118, you must be able to think a little to fully understand the scenario geometry and history etc.
I.e. If the clocks are at rest in frame E, but have speed away from the origin of frame C equal to Vce, in C’s positive direction then:
(1) Like the resting clocks, frame E has speed away from the origin of frame C, the point C(0,0), also.
(2)The origin of frame E, E(0,0) is already to the right of C(0,0). (“speed away from the origin of frame C” )
(3)The distance of E(0,0) from point C(0,0) is increasing (“moving in C’s the positive X direction.”)
(4) As the motion is along C’s X-axis even in frame E, this confirms the prior statement that ALL motion is along the X-axis direction common to both frames.
SUMMARY: E(0,0) is already “distant” and to the right of C(0,0) and this distance between the two frame origins is increasing with speed Vce.

Even this is just repeating the start of post 198 which was:
“I have …two references frames, C & E in relative motion along their common X-axis line with relative speed Vce.”

The later stated fact that when the clocks accelerate away from resting at E(0,0) they travel in “in the negative X direction (towards C’s origin)” also tells you the relative locations of the two frame origins.

You are just finding one cop out after another to avoid admitting your version of SR is self contradictory.
(as I proved mathematically in post 118 by following your procedures twice to get two different values for the same clock’s time dilation.)
You have not even told which of your two (approved in your post 93) conflicting proceedures is false and which is correct.

Nor do you deny that your logic is circular: I.e. we are discussing whether or not SR’s prediction that the tick rate of a clock depends upon which frame’s clocks are used to measure it. You, however, ASSUME it does not and postulate the existence of what you call the Physical Tick Rate or the universal Physical Time Dilation and tells us to calculate it with the clocks speed wrt their prior “common rest frame.” Postulating the answer to the question as your starting point in a discussion is not an argument for your POV – it is circular reasoning.

 

My point being that without specific values calculations are impossible and hence so is what you hope to demonstrate.

I have always been annoyed by peoople inserting one scenario after another and not resolving the issue raised in the first scenario. That is you don't answer my question but attempt to post SR BS rhetoric via a new scenario challenge.

That is why I resist following such ill defined cases. You call them detailed mathematically I call them unnecessarily complex and lengthy. The point is simple.

1 - Only an accelerated frame has ever been demonstrated to have become dilated.

2 - Reciprocity has never been demonstrated or tested and is apparently untestable.

3 - Being untestable SR is falsified on it's surface.

4 - I gave a case of radioactive particles being used as clocks. "A", "B" & "C". Where "A" launches first. data is gathered and "B" is then launched and immediately data is gathered. I showed that keeping acceleration schedules equal and brief in comparison to the inertial velocity of "A" to "B" that the % decay of "A" and "B" does not change when viewed in either the "A" or "C" frame.

There simply is no need for any further discussion or scenarios if you cannot resolve this issue because it clearly rejects the arguement that time dilation is a frame dependant function.

Bull crap. The cop out is to have the primary scenario ignored and to be fed a bunch of new scenarios to compute.

Now respond to the radioactive clock issue. I have likewise shown that using mere relative velocity SR results in multiple predictions. That the only valid prediction is one made considering who has "Actual" veloicty by saying who switched frames. That is a form of absolute motion not relative motion to a rest reference between clocks. That is why relative velocity between clocks is meaningless to physical time dilation and is limited to the realm of perceptional illusion during motion. Two clocks launched equally from a common rest remain synchronized regardless of their motion being co-moving (no relative veloicty) or in opposite directons (maximum relative velocity).

So I do not want to hear about Macm's view has contridictions. So does SR relative veloicty view.

I have assumed nothing. I posted the radioactive clock scenario based on SR calculation methods and the results are clear "Time dilation is not frame dependant".

Now acknowledge that inconsistancy in SR or show without undue BS that something in my presentation is inaccurate.

As to my version of SR being contridictory I have stated I do not have the answer but that I have the question. You choose to concentrate on what I already know and that is that a "Simple" absolute motion basis does not work.

But I have also shown that SR does not work as advocated. So SR is not superior to an absolute view. Both are problematic and what that means is it is time to think of some new ways to look at things.

I then suggest some possiblilities but others just want to make snide comments about SR doesn't say that. I know SR doesn't say that but if it did it might be closer to the truth.

 

First part of that is true, but I am not stopping you or anyone from setting Vce = 0.6c or any other value your like, etc.

What you seem not to appreciate is that the algebraic approach is supperior to the numerical one in showing a conflict as it covers ALL Cases. For example, if one claims that 2x = y + 1 then it is inconsistent for them to also say 2(x-1) = y. With algebraic approach in post 118 I show that your two approved methods (in post 93 and elsewhere) lead to confilicting / different results for the time dilation of tha same clock, REGARDLESS of the particular numerical vlaues you may chose for the algebraic symbols.

I cannot be sure of your scenarios, or even which of the many you have set up you are now concerned with. I described my simple scenario in three lines and challenged you to do the same.

I have only one scenario - the simplest possible for an SR discussion with only two clocks A & B and two inertial reference frames C & E with constant mutual relative speed Vce. I use subscripts to tell what frame or frames. Thus, for example, I designate of the Time Dilation of clock B measured in frame C as TDBc. You in contrast ambiguously speak of TDB without being clear which frame is doing the measuring of it. This is because you ASSUME it is the same for all frames so it is not necessary to specify any frame - but that is what you must prove to refute SR's claim that TDB does depend upon the frame measuring. I.e. SR states that TDBc is not the same as TDBe. You assume it is. But that is what is the point in question. Your starting assumption and finishing conclusion are the same. - That is circular reasoning.

Don't make me laugh - all my symbols, geometry, motions etc are precisely defined. In contrast your "words only" are not precise as my defined symbols and you do not, as I have just noted, even specify which frame is measuring, but ASSUME that is not important! You even call time dilations "THE Physical Time Dilation" as if there were only one, independent of frames.

I too hate to "compute" - that is why is used the algebraic approach which is supperior to the numerical one in showing a conflict.

I must have missed the post where you show standard SR is self contradictory. Please give the post number or link. I do not "say" "Macm's view has contradictions" - I PROVE that via algebra in post 118 following only the procedures you said were valid in post 93.


The remained of your post is just so much more words or "hand waving” not any proof that SR is self conflicting in it predictions.

Not true. SR never use "absolute motion" or any preferred "mutual rest frame" but only RELATVE frames. I used your mutual rest frame ONLY as I followed YOUR approved procedures.

I think they are nonsense, but if I am to show that to you I must use only procedures you have agreed to. Likewise if you want to prove SR is nonsense, hand waving words and your postulated to exist preferred common rest frame are not going to show an SR believer that he is wrong - to refute any "proof" you may offer based on these assumptions and postulate that violate SR all he need to do (as I have) is state that your postulate is false. For example, your "common rest frame" is in no way special or preferred from SR's POV so any argument that is based on it being unique is easily refuted by the SR believer - he simply states your starting assumption is false.

When do you go to Stockholm to get your Nobel Prize in physics?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Words and hand waving is NOT a proof. Let's see at least a rigorous argument that does not start by assuming true things that SR states are false, such as the speed wrt a common rest frame is the only way to correctly compute time dilations or assume there is only one common rest frame in the history of the clocks, or assume all frames measure the same time dilation so you are justified in calling it The Physical Time Dilation, etc.

Finally something important!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your spinning avatar is definitely rotating counter clockwise now for me. Focus your attention on the pretty lady’s crown as it goes around.

 

This is where you are saying that Galileo was wrong. SR doesn't say anything different on this issue than Galileo's relativity.

At rest relative to himself, as I said. When you say something is at rest, you are specifying that thing as your reference point, that you are specifying velocities relative to that thing.

Clearly, the plane's velocity relative to plane is zero.
Since the plane is flying, we know that there must be air flowing over the wings. i.e. the air has a velocity to the rear relative to the plane.
We can also hazard a guess that the plane is moving forward relative to the ground, which is the same (according to Galileo and Newton) as saying that the ground is moving backward relative to the plane, don't you agree?

 

To James R:
There is only one question in your post 170. It is: “Is velocity physically real, or illusionary?”
I am quite sure MacM’s answer to that it is “real,” (but with a possible solipsist reservation that every physical thing many only be illusion) .

The rest of that post is somewhat offensive to MacM, I am also sure, so perhaps that is why he has not responded. Things like:
“In your fantasy MacM world, we have agreement on distances, but relative velocities and times change between frames.
In addition, I note that relative {SR relativity?} is self-consistent mathematically and logically, whereas MacM fantasy physics is inconsistent, muddled and nonsensical. …”

MacM is exceptionally clever and thinks independently. I am quite sure he is wrong about SR and have gotten him to admit that his reversion is self contradictory, but he thinks the same is true of SR. I did this by first getting his agreement on the “valid” procedures (there are two*) to compute Time Dilation, TD, in post 93 and then in post 118 showed they give conflicting results.

MacM is as annoyed with you as you are with him. Both of you propose new scenarios and then demand the other respond to the problems they seem to present to the other. That will never persuade the other your POV is correct.

In a separate post, I plan to summarize my understanding of MacM’s current POV. If MacM confirms my summary as valid, perhaps we can continue to see what else can be agreed, instead of just talk past each other making no progress.

-----------------------
*One “MacM approved” procedure for calculating the TD of clock B which is moving in frame A (or as I insist on designating it, TDBa) is the one which has many times been experimentally confirmed. Namely the standard SR formula is used with the velocity of B wrt any point on its trajectory line fixed in frame A. To distinguish this TDBa from one computed by the other procedure, I rename it TDBa1.

The second “MacM approved” procedure for calculating the TD of clock B which is moving in frame A is to find a “Common {Mutual} Rest Frame”, CMRF, in which at some prior time clocks A & B were mutually at rest in CMRF, or to be brief also called just frame C. Then one applies the same standard SR formula twice. Once with the velocity VAc to compute TDAc and again with velocity VBc to get TDBc. Finally to find TDBa, one subtracts these two. I.e. TDBa = (TDBc –TDAc) = TDBa2.
AFAIK, MacM never stated it, but in case their prior history includes more than one CMRFs, one should (I assume) use the velocities wrt the most recent CMRF.

Needless to say, and MacM now agrees, that TDBA1 is not the same as TDBa2, except possibly in one rare velocity choice case.