1. Originally Posted by Paul T
Yes, it was a waste from your side. Fortunately I did not make any attempt to response to your post, which I (and most others here as well, I believe) did not understand. Do not waste more of your time to rewrite your message, since crap will remain as crap no matter how you wrap it....
We've noted that from your posts.

2. Originally Posted by Rosnet
I've addressed the length contraction issue in the anti-Relativity thread. The 'apparent' discrepancy is due to the fact that <I>time</I> intervals can be accumulated, and hence, compared after everyone comes to rest in one frame. On the other hand, you can't really have an accumulated <I>space</I> interval (that is length). Length contraction occurs only during motion, as time dilation does, too, but you can't add it up and store it for comparison afterwards. However, you can make measurements of length indirectly and compare them. This is what I've done in the other post. If time dilation is a fact, then you can't avoid length conraction.

To the contrary. If you retain the emperically observed and recorded fact of time dilation with motion then you cannot declare spatial length contraction.

Where tr = tick rate

t * tr = d / v accounts for all relavistic trips regardless of velocity and with no change in distance.

3. Originally Posted by Pete
You comprehensively showed that you don't know how to show what SR predicts.

You mixed frames in a way inconsistent with SR theory. So what? So, the "reciprocal relationship" you showed is not a prediction of SR.
It sure as hell is. If you understood that then perhaps you would convert.

************************************************** ************************************************** ****
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.

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

I might or not might not embrace a worldview consistent with SR, but I think that I do know how to apply the theory... do you? Do you think that you could work out a "correct" textbook answer to all (most? any?) exercises in a first-year relativity text?
I would imagine so certainly.

4. Originally Posted by Aer
MacM, I've told you this before - Your version of "special relativity" does not adhere to the postulates of Einstein's special relativity.
I cite SRT correctly. I point out the falicy of its claims. If those claims are inherent from the postulates then the postulates are false and are based on mis-interpretatons of data. It really is that simple.

It is not imperative that I supply new postulates nor re-interprete data. It is only necessary to show the falicy. I have done so.

Length contraction, time dilation, reciprocity, et al are all results of the postulates of special relativity. You only want to consider the aspects of special relativity that have been experimentally proven and throw out the other stuff. You just cannot do this (well, technically you can). But you need to come up with new postulates that allow for time dilation but do not allow for length contraction and recirpocity as it appears to me you are doing.
Now this is disappointing. What I have claimed is in fact a proper interpretation which retains the gamma function, eliminates reciprocity and spatial length contraction. Relativity survives in my view but not as presented by Einstein.

Nothing in my view is in conflict with any observation or recorded experimental data.

The fact is that given tr = tick rate:

t * tr = d / v says it more clear than 20 pages of debate. If you retain the emperically supported view of time dilation of a moving clock then you cannot also claim physical contraction of spatial distance.

Length contraction only occurs when you disregard the physical disparity between clock tick rates.

5. Originally Posted by James R
Well, MacM, this thread didn't get very far, did it? I guess we're done, unless you have something new to add. Or would you prefer to exchange insults for a while?
Only when there are those that choose to remain ignorant. Don't take that as exchanging an insult. An insult would be false.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
I cite SRT correctly.
You are never going to convince me that you understand fully special relativity until you can take a special relativity problem and achieve the correct answers according to special relativity whether or not you agree with said answers. As such, the rest of your post isn't neccessary.

7. Originally Posted by MacM
I would imagine so certainly.
OK Then! "Exercises in Special Relativity" thread coming right up.

8. Originally Posted by Aer
You are never going to convince me that you understand fully special relativity until you can take a special relativity problem and achieve the correct answers according to special relativity whether or not you agree with said answers. As such, the rest of your post isn't neccessary.
Well, I have posted several gamma calculations and velocity addition calculations. Perhaps you might start by showing one error in such calculated results.

9. Originally Posted by MacM
Well, I have posted several gamma calculations and velocity addition calculations. Perhaps you might start by showing one error in such calculated results.
I will never be impressed by the ability to plug numbers into an equation (i.e. gamma calculations, etc). I'd like to see you take a story problem and achieve the answers that special relativity and only special relativity predicts.

10. Originally Posted by Aer
I will never be impressed by the ability to plug numbers into an equation (i.e. gamma calculations, etc). I'd like to see you take a story problem and achieve the answers that special relativity and only special relativity predicts.
THese calculations are based on such gendankin stories. How else do you believe they are derived.

If you don't like my story give me one of your. Just don't turn it into an overly complex scenario unneccessarily, I like to get to the point and issue.

11. Originally Posted by MacM
THese calculations are based on such gendankin stories. How else do you believe they are derived.

If you don't like my story give me one of your. Just don't turn it into an overly complex scenario unneccessarily, I like to get to the point and issue.
The point and issue is not your interpretation of the story problem, it is the interpretation of special relativity to the story problem.

12. Originally Posted by Aer
The point and issue is not your interpretation of the story problem, it is the interpretation of special relativity to the story problem.
Well, I anxiously await your demonstration of this statement by pointing out one specific falicy in my general position. I am not saying I have not posted errors I have, some however, do not represent what my view is and I have made corrections. So I await your specific allegations.

13. Originally Posted by MacM
Well, I anxiously await your demonstration of this statement by pointing out one specific falicy in my general position. I am not saying I have not posted errors I have, some however, do not represent what my view is and I have made corrections. So I await your specific allegations.
Give a go at Pete's story problem here and I'll allege away!

14. Originally Posted by Aer
Give a go at Pete's story problem here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47571) and I'll allege away!
I'll note that you have failed to point out any specific errors in my posts and you hope to make a challenge showing I do not understand relativity.

Whew what a relief that would be for you huh? You wouldn't be cornered by my presentation you could claim it is all my mis-understanding

Well here is Pete's problem:

************************************************** ********
Test your understanding of Special Relativity.
This thread isn't about whether you agree with the theory, it's about whether you understand it well enough to get "correct" answers to textbook problems.

Shall we begin with an easy one?

13. Equal speeds
A and B travel at 4c/5 and 3c/5, respectively, as shown in Fig. 10.36.
How fast should C travel between them, so that he sees A and B approaching him at the same speed?
What is this speed?

Code:
Figure 10.36
4c/5 ? 3c/5
* ---> * ---> * --->
A C B
************************************************** ********
Well perhaps you think I don't know about Velocity Addition. Strange since I have opened a thread on that subject and peformed VAF calculations. But to appease your curiosity I'll work it out and be back to you tonight.

Put in more simple terms:

* -------> 0.8c.........*-------->?.......*--------->0.6c
A............................C.................... ..B

I must note however that Pete fails to identify what such velocities must be in relation to. As written it must be some absolute system.

But I know what he wants and won't balk on that point.

I believe the correct answer would be 0.72c.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•