1. MacM's Claims

Explore the wonderful world of MacM's theories (or claims, rather). What I say is mostly based on the following quote.

Originally Posted by MacM
To ignore that calculated change in tick rate is the only basis to claim a physical spatial distance contraction. What I have said is distance does not contract and the relavisticly moving observer therefore msut either calculated he attained a different velocity for the trip or assume his clock slowed down.
Because to claim both length contraction of space and time dilation as physically real consequences causes an observer moivng at 0.866c to make the trip in 25% of the time, not the standard 50% of the time.
Where tr = tick rate @ 0.866c tr = 0.5 vs th standard at rest clock.
The standard formula t = d/v must be changed to include the accepted physical fact of time dilation due to motion before computing any relavistic gendankin such that:
t * tr = d / v and it can be seen that by retaining the accept fact of time dilation on the moving clock that the trip will take t = d / (v * tr).
Where d = 1, v = 1
t = 1 / (1 * 0.5) = 0.5 and there is simply no physical room for a distance contraction.
Stop ignoring time dilation when you want to claim spatial contraction. You unwittingly equate a tick rate of 0.5 to a tick rate of 1.0 and you are mixing frames to assert length contraction.
<B>Claim (1)- No Reciprocity for Time Dilation</B>

MacM, read this to the end before answering. (Assuming you dare to answer. Or are you going to totally ignore this thread too, like you did, my length contraction one?).

Time dilation depends on 'absolute velocity'. In other words, if a train is moving with respect to a platform, then an observer on the platform will see a clock inside the train tick slower than his own clock, while an observer in the train will see the clock on the platform run faster than <I>his</I> clock. Provided the 'absolute velocity' of the train is greater than that of the platform.

Q. What does this mean?
A. It is possible to measure the absolute velocity of an object.

Q. How?
A. Through the following experiment. Let your current absolute velocity be v<Sub>0</Sub>. Place a clock somewhere nearby. The clock's velocity will also be v<Sub>0</Sub>. Recall the case of the moving train. Since the train's absolute velocity is greater than that of the platform (as assumed), the train's clock will slow down. But the train will see that the platform's absolute velocity is less than its own, and hence that the platform clock is faster than its own. Carry out a similar operation here. Accelerate up to a certain velocity. See whether the clock on the table is faster than the watch on your hand. If it is, then your absolute velocity is greater than v<Sub>0</Sub>. Then, start deccelerating. Now, you should see that the table clock is returning to 'normal' rate (w.r.t. your watch). Don't stop deccelerating when you get back to v<Sub>0</Sub>. Continue (accelerating in the opposite direction to the previous one). And then, you should either see that the table clock slows down further, or that it again starts speeding up.
Case (i): The former case occurs when v<Sub>0</Sub> (absolute velocity) is not zero. Which means that you initially had some non-zero absolute velocity. And when you first accelerated, it was in the same direction as this velocity, and that is why your clock slowed down (since you had greater absolute velocity than the table clock). But when you started accelerating in the opposite direction, your absolute velocity started <I>decreasing</I>. And when your absolute velocity became lower than v<Sub>0</Sub>, your clock started running faster than the table clock. Continue this until you see the table clock start to run faster again. This is when you reach zero absolute velocity, and start gaining speed in the opposite direction. Note this point. Now, you are at absolute rest.
Case (ii): This is the same as the end of case one. When you are at absolute rest. which implies that your original absolute velocity v<Sub>0</Sub> was zero.

So, now you can determine absolute velocity. MacM, get back to me with the absolute velocity of the Earth. Maybe you can base your Ph.D paper on this.

Here's an alternative. The above experiment might be denied by MacM, based on his 'common rest point' (CRP) theory. Which says that since you and the table clock were intially at rest in the original frame, this frame is your 'common rest frame', and so it doesn't matter in whichever direction you accelerate, since you'll always have a velocity with respect to this frame.

Here goes. If you were on Earth initially, and you started moving, in whichever direction, you would see Earth clocks ticking faster w.r.t your own clock. This is utterly impossible, and is more ridiculous than the other claim of absolute velocity. For this would mean that the rate of your clock depends on when you were born (or when you became conscious). How? This is how.
Consider the above experiment. According to the CRP theory, whichever direction you gain speed in, you'll always see the table clock run faster than your's. Imagine that the table clock had been constructed by someone on the moon, and then brought to the Earth. So for someone on the moon, the moon would have been the common rest point for him and the clock, and hence, the clock, which is now moving w.r.t him and the CRP (the moon), should be ticking slower. All this took place long back. You were born later, and have no knowledge of this. So you accelerate in the same direction as the moon, and eventually reach it, where you stay. Now the Earth table clock is moving faster with respect your clock. But according to the guy on the moon, it is running slower than his own clock (remember?). So the end scenario is this. The moon clock is running at some rate. The Earth clock (which was originally brought from the moon) is running slower than the moon clock. Your clock is running slower than the Earth clock. So that your clock is also running much slower than the moon clock. Remember that at this point, you're standing on the moon. Probably next to the guy who originally made and launched the Earth clock. So you're at rest w.r.t him, and while you're standing chatting with him, you can see that your clock is much slower than his clock! And why? Just because you were born without the knowledge that this was the original clock maker. MacM, made all this up because he refused to believe that two clocks could tick each at different rates (each slower than the other), in different frames. And now he's reached the point where he says that two clocks in the <I>same frame</I> tick at different rates.

So much for the wonderful predictions of MacM's CRAP Theory.
....
Oooooooooops! I made a typo. Oh well! I don't have time to correct it now. Everyone, just read it as MacM's CRP theory instead of MacM's CRAP theory. That is, if you can force yourself to do so.

<B>Claim (2)- Biased Velocity</B>

Biased Velocity (term coined by me) is the MacM theory which says that if we launch a spaceship at velocity 'v', then an observer in the spaceship will measure our velocity as being greater than 'v'. To be exact, he'll see it as (gamma)*v. For an electron which has been accelerated to .866c, then gamma will approximately be 2. So our velocity as seen by the elctron will be 2*.866c = 1.732c. So in the electron's frame, we have a velocity greater than that of light, in the elcetron's frame. I'll leave it to you to think about that.

<B>Claim (3)- Length Non-Contraction</B>

Which simply says that length contraction is completely bogus. And this follows from the first two claims, whose validity we saw very clearly. And of course, I've also provided two derivations of Length Contraction (in my thread 'Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues), the second of which does not depend on reciprocity, either of time dilation, or of velocity. But MacM has chosen to blatantly ignore this, despite my repeatedly pointing it out to him.

The arguments given so far are direct arguments to the claims. These are completely unnecessary if one turns to the results of Lorentz transformations. And these can be derived simply from the postulates, and assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy of space and time, without invoking reciprocity, or any other <I>apparently</I> confusing results. Length contraction, time dilation, simultaneity-effects, and the other results of relativity can be derived without any further assumptions. I wonder what MacM has got to say to that.
<Style> sub{font-size: 12px;} </Style>

2. Sticky this post. The fact that MacM hasn't responded with even an insult, is evidence that he is beaten.

3. Originally Posted by Rosnet
Explore the wonderful world of MacM's theories (or claims, rather). What I say is mostly based on the following quote.

<B>Claim (1)- No Reciprocity for Time Dilation</B>

MacM, read this to the end before answering. (Assuming you dare to answer. Or are you going to totally ignore this thread too, like you did, my length contraction one?).

Time dilation depends on 'absolute velocity'. In other words, if a train is moving with respect to a platform, then an observer on the platform will see a clock inside the train tick slower than his own clock, while an observer in the train will see the clock on the platform run faster than <I>his</I> clock. Provided the 'absolute velocity' of the train is greater than that of the platform.
For the 100th time. I have not and do not argue the "Perception" issue but only the accumulated time dilation of clocks. Although I suggest your statement above is correct and there is simply no data, observation or evidence which contridicts that view.

Q. What does this mean?
A. It is possible to measure the absolute velocity of an object.
Absolutely not. I have never claimed otherwise.

Q. How?

So, now you can determine absolute velocity. MacM, get back to me with the absolute velocity of the Earth. Maybe you can base your Ph.D paper on this.
I'll refrain from my instinct to tell you where to go and simply make it a matter of record once more that I have never claimed absolute motion can be detected. However, within relative velocity there is clearly component motions (velocities) of the two clocks. Only one can be at actual rest and still have relative velocity.

Rest is nothing more than an inertial velocity. But that is a local rest and may actually (and most certainly is motion in a universal sense). It is rather neat that both clocks can be at rest due to having an inertial velocity. The differance is only one will ever actually run slow and display less accumulated time and that is due to the fact that what you call rest is still actually absolute motion even though you have no way of measuring what it is.

Here's an alternative. The above experiment might be denied by MacM, based on his 'common rest point' (CRP) theory. Which says that since you and the table clock were intially at rest in the original frame, this frame is your 'common rest frame', and so it doesn't matter in whichever direction you accelerate, since you'll always have a velocity with respect to this frame.
That is a valid statement (Except the CRP part of course). All relavistic functions are based on energy level and one must accelerate to change velocity and that requires energy input.

Here goes. If you were on Earth initially, and you started moving, in whichever direction, you would see Earth clocks ticking faster w.r.t your own clock. This is utterly impossible, and is more ridiculous than the other claim of absolute velocity.
Really? Prove it. Give some test data that supports your denial of that affect. Actually GPS proves it is true. The orbiting clock has to be sped up +7.2us/day to cause it to remain synchronized with surface clocks. (GR excluded).

For this would mean that the rate of your clock depends on when you were born (or when you became conscious). How? This is how.
Consider the above experiment. According to the CRP theory, whichever direction you gain speed in, you'll always see the table clock run faster than your's. Imagine that the table clock had been constructed by someone on the moon, and then brought to the Earth. So for someone on the moon, the moon would have been the common rest point for him and the clock, and hence, the clock, which is now moving w.r.t him and the CRP (the moon), should be ticking slower. All this took place long back. You were born later, and have no knowledge of this. So you accelerate in the same direction as the moon, and eventually reach it, where you stay. Now the Earth table clock is moving faster with respect your clock. But according to the guy on the moon, it is running slower than his own clock (remember?). So the end scenario is this. The moon clock is running at some rate. The Earth clock (which was originally brought from the moon) is running slower than the moon clock. Your clock is running slower than the Earth clock. So that your clock is also running much slower than the moon clock. Remember that at this point, you're standing on the moon. Probably next to the guy who originally made and launched the Earth clock. So you're at rest w.r.t him, and while you're standing chatting with him, you can see that your clock is much slower than his clock! And why? Just because you were born without the knowledge that this was the original clock maker. MacM, made all this up because he refused to believe that two clocks could tick each at different rates (each slower than the other), in different frames. And now he's reached the point where he says that two clocks in the <I>same frame</I> tick at different rates.

So much for the wonderful predictions of MacM's CRAP Theory.
So much for distortions. The moon and earth both have set velocities and clocks will tick at specific rates when moving at those veloicties. You forgot that didn't you. You seem to be mis-applying the math.
....
Oooooooooops! I made a typo. Oh well! I don't have time to correct it now. Everyone, just read it as MacM's CRP theory instead of MacM's CRAP theory. That is, if you can force yourself to do so.
Nobody can be forced to think. That is an unfortunate fact.

<B>Claim (2)- Biased Velocity</B>

Biased Velocity (term coined by me) is the MacM theory which says that if we launch a spaceship at velocity 'v', then an observer in the spaceship will measure our velocity as being greater than 'v'. To be exact, he'll see it as (gamma)*v. For an electron which has been accelerated to .866c, then gamma will approximately be 2. So our velocity as seen by the elctron will be 2*.866c = 1.732c. So in the electron's frame, we have a velocity greater than that of light, in the elcetron's frame. I'll leave it to you to think about that.
You might be so kind as to point out where you think I ever said that is the case. I haven't. I did point out that when claiming spatial contraction by ignoring the physical known time dilation affect on the clock in motion for which you claim spatial contraction by calculating d = v * t, you have not eliminated the alternative which is that the observer could as well calculate that his velocity was greater, not that distance was shorter. i.e. v = d / t.

Care to retract your nonsense. Or better yet address the fact that the dilated condition of the clock is ignored when doing the distance calculation.

Given 0.866c, t = 0.5 normal.

Also the tick rate factor 'k' is 0.5; d = v * t / k = 1 * 0.5 / 0.5 = 1; distance didn't change.

<B>Claim (3)- Length Non-Contraction</B>

Which simply says that length contraction is completely bogus. And this follows from the first two claims, whose validity we saw very clearly. And of course, I've also provided two derivations of Length Contraction (in my thread 'Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues), the second of which does not depend on reciprocity, either of time dilation, or of velocity. But MacM has chosen to blatantly ignore this, despite my repeatedly pointing it out to him.
I beg to differ. I have not ignored any such thing. Please post a link to your nonsense.

The arguments given so far are direct arguments to the claims. These are completely unnecessary if one turns to the results of Lorentz transformations. And these can be derived simply from the postulates, and assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy of space and time, without invoking reciprocity, or any other <I>apparently</I> confusing results. Length contraction, time dilation, simultaneity-effects, and the other results of relativity can be derived without any further assumptions. I wonder what MacM has got to say to that.
<Style> sub{font-size: 12px;} </Style>
Bullshit. How do you propose to ignore reciprocity? How do you justify ignoring the tick rate of the clock that makes a trip in half the time when it's tick rate = 0.5 and then claim distance changed. It cannot have changed or the clock would have accumulated even less time (25%) for trip.

You might attempt to address these issues rather than creating this long BS diversion.

4. Originally Posted by Rosnet
Sticky this post. The fact that MacM hasn't responded with even an insult, is evidence that he is beaten.
Sticky this where the sun doesn't shine you pompus arrogant egotistical twit. Wrong again aren't you.?

I have things to do other than search for threads attacking me. If you will note I have responded to perhaps a dozen posts in other threads.

BTW: James R, I would expect to see you admonish Rosnet, as you did me for breaking the rules by commenting about somebody not posting. I waited several days before noting that Yuriy had not responded. Rosnet seems to think 16 hours means no response.

5. ...breaking the rules by commenting about somebody not posting.
What rules?

6. Originally Posted by James R
What rules?
The same ones that were cited when I commented that Yuriy had not responded to my post. Or was that merely made up because it was handy for ou at the time.

7. Originally Posted by MacM
Originally Posted by Me
Sticky this post. The fact that MacM hasn't responded with even an insult, is evidence that he is beaten.
James R, I would expect to see you admonish Rosnet, as you did me for breaking the rules by commenting about somebody not posting.
I made that post in order to provoke MacM, as he has been ignoring some of my other posts too. You may admonish me or whatever.

Originally Posted by MacM
Sticky this where the sun doesn't shine you pompus arrogant egotistical twit.
...
...
...
...
Bullshit.
...
You might attempt to address these issues rather than creating this long BS diversion.
The fact that MacM <I>has</I> responded with insults after I accused him is further evidence that he is beaten!

8. Don't pay much attention to the above post. Just having some fun.

9. Originally Posted by MacM
For the 100th time. I have not and do not argue the "Perception" issue but only the accumulated time dilation of clocks. Although I suggest your statement above is correct and there is simply no data, observation or evidence which contridicts that view
What you have said as to the accumulated time in clocks is in perfect agreement with relativity. Relativity <I>does</I> talk about what an observer in motion sees (percieves, if you wish) while he is in motion, and not just after he's stopped. This is important (maybe not for you, but for Physics, it is). But you don't care to talk about it, or think about it. So you don't disagree with relativity there either. I didn't say that you <I>agree</I>, but you certainly don't disagree. So in short, there is no disagreement between you and relativity. THEN WHAT THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN YAPPING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME?
Can you for once, tell us what you actually <I>do</I> claim, instead trying to deny having made claims?

Originally Posted by MacM
Originally Posted by Rosnet
Q. What does this mean?
A. It is possible to measure the absolute velocity of an object
Absolutely not. I have never claimed otherwise
Originally Posted by MacM
I'll refrain from my instinct to tell you where to go and simply make it a matter of record once more that I have never claimed absolute motion can be detected
But you <I>have</I> claimed this:
From <A href= "http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=46454&page=3&pp=20">Experiment to demonstrate mutual observed time dilation- Page 3</A>
Originally Posted by MacM
The only thing verified is a one way gamma calculation where clock tick rate can be shown to vary as a function of its local absolute velocity relative to a common rest referance point and not merely relative to another clock which can claim a reversal of frames and affect
Suppose you claimed that division by zero is perfectly feasible. Then, if I I used it prove to you that 1=2, and you deny having claimed any such thing, how smart are you? You don't have to claim each and every thing specifically. All the implications of any claim made by you are your responsibilty. I demonstrated how it was possible to determine absolute velocity on assuming that your claim (about time dilation depending on absolute velocity) was true. I specifically stated that this is what it <B>means</B>. But the implication is your responsibilty, even if you didn't directly claim it. Or you have to show where exactly I made a mistake in my derivation. And I also provided an alternative in case you denied your first claim (as you did, according to my prediction). The alternative your CRP theory.

Originally Posted by MacM
Originally Posted by Me
Here's an alternative. The above experiment might be denied by MacM, based on his 'common rest point' (CRP) theory. Which says that since you and the table clock were intially at rest in the original frame, this frame is your 'common rest frame', and so it doesn't matter in whichever direction you accelerate, since you'll always have a velocity with respect to this frame.
That is a valid statement (Except the CRP part of course). All relavistic functions are based on energy level and one must accelerate to change velocity and that requires energy input
You denied your first claim. Now you say that the CRP part is also invalid. So how <I>do</I> you propose to deny reciprocity? The second part of your sentence, about energy talks about accelerations. From where? From the 'common rest point'? No? Then you must consider <I>all</I> the accelerations that have taken place. And this leads us back to the absolute velocity, your first claim, which you denied. So what you've done is, when someone talks about the absolute velocity theory, you deny this and points out CRP to him. When someone talks about CRP, you deny this, and talk about acceleration, which, since you denied CRP, leads back to absolute velocity. Nice going.

Originally Posted by MacM
Originally Posted by Me
If you were on Earth initially, and you started moving, in whichever direction, you would see Earth clocks ticking faster w.r.t your own clock. This is utterly impossible, and is more ridiculous than the other claim of absolute velocity
Really? Prove it. Give some test data that supports your denial of that affect. Actually GPS proves it is true. The orbiting clock has to be sped up +7.2us/day to cause it to remain synchronized with surface clocks
I <I>have</I> proved it. I don't have to provide data on this specifically. If Physics consisted of looking for and recording data of each singe detail, there would be no Theoretical Physics. Science is about making predictions based on your previous observations. I have proved what I claimed (unlike someone we know) by showing the implications. Since the implications of your claims are ridiculous, your claims themselves are ridiculous. GPS does <I>not</I> prove this. What it does prove is that the clock in a moving GPS frame dilates, as seen from Earth. It does <I>not</I> prove that a person in the GPS frame sees the Earth clock ticking <B>faster</B>. And the clocks are synchronised in the Earth frame. Not in the satellite's frame.

Originally Posted by MacM
The moon and earth both have set velocities and clocks will tick at specific rates when moving at those veloicties. You forgot that didn't you.
Originally Posted by MacM
You might be so kind as to point out where you think I ever said that is the case.
Originally Posted by MacM
Distance did not and cannot have changed.
...
The only valid conclusion from all this is to assume the moving observer would calculate his velocity as being higher than would be calculated by a resting observer
From <A href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47123&page=8&pp=20">The Death of Relativity- Page 8</A>
Originally Posted by MacM
To reduce this issue to something a bit more understandable.

Take two clocks A and B with ...
But B would calculate that he had traveled 120 Mph not 60 Mph
Originally Posted by MacM
I haven't. I did point out that when claiming spatial contraction by ignoring the physical known time dilation affect on the clock in motion for which you claim spatial contraction by calculating d = v * t, you have not eliminated the alternative which is that the observer could as well calculate that his velocity was greater, not that distance was shorter. i.e. v = d / t.

Care to retract your nonsense. Or better yet address the fact that the dilated condition of the clock is ignored when doing the distance calculation.
There you go again, denying claims, but not caring to make clear, what it is that you really say. Let me help you. Even though you still haven't solidly said anything, you have, in fact, given two choices:
(i) Length contraction - which depends on reciprocity of time dilation and velocity
(ii)Non-reciprocity of time dilation- Which implies non-reciprocity of velocity, absence of length contraction.

You've said that when proving length contraction, we're ignoring the 'fact' of 'physical known time dilation'. And then you say that there is an alternative, which is the biased velocity effect that I mentioned earlier. It has to be either one. You alternately refute each, when pointed out. Come on, tell us which one you actually think is true. Length contraction, or biased velocity? Before making up your mind, take a look at the <B>second</B> post in this thread, which does not ignore any time dilation, or assume that each person see the other's clock as dilated:
<A href="http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=833683">Length Contraction, Muon Experiment, and other issues</A>

Originally Posted by MacM
Bullshit. How do you propose to ignore reciprocity? How do you justify ignoring the tick rate of the clock that makes a trip in half the time when it's tick rate = 0.5 and then claim distance changed. It cannot have changed or the clock would have accumulated even less time (25%) for trip
I never said I <B>ignored </B> reciprocity. I just did not use it. So that you cannot argue I didn't consider 'physical known time dilation'. The derivation, in fact, <I>uses</I> this.

Originally Posted by MacM
Sorry, I can't do that, simply because I haven't posted any nonsense!

10. Originally Posted by Rosnet
I made that post in order to provoke MacM, as he has been ignoring some of my other posts too. You may admonish me or whatever.
Again I request you post links to any post you claim I hae ignored. I have not ignored any. If I have missed them it is because I have not subscribed to the threqad and am busy answering those I have.

The fact that MacM <I>has</I> responded with insults after I accused him is further evidence that he is beaten!
I responded in kind. Your post was an insult. And Blah, blah, blah about being beaten. You wish. We all notice you have not responded with any physics rebuttal and now chose to post selfserving innuendo.

Now for the rest of us beaten folks please post:

1 - A case of observed and recorded reciprocity predicted by Special Relativity.

2 - Justify disregararding the tick rate of a dilated clock in motion when computing distance by d = v * t, so as to claim spatial contraction of distance.

There is more but this should keep you busy for a while I would think.

11. 1 - A case of observed and recorded reciprocity predicted by Special Relativity.
No such thing as you state it.

12. Justify disregararding the tick rate of a dilated clock in motion when computing distance by d = v * t, so as to claim spatial contraction of distance.
What disregard of the tick rate? What are you talking about?

13. Originally Posted by James R
What disregard of the tick rate? What are you talking about?
I suggest you see this thread, where I try to get MacM to respond to that very question.

It took him a week to explain it. (And, of course, he didn't have a leg to stand on.)

14. Originally Posted by superluminal
No such thing as you state it.

Sorry SL but you stand corrected:

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

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

15. Yes Mac, that sounds right. Where do you see it saying that both clocks will do anything other than OBSERVE the other to be dilated???

16. Originally Posted by James R
What disregard of the tick rate? What are you talking about?
This is interesting. This has been explained at least two dozen times and yet you want to pretend it has not.

1 - Is it not true that your claim that a distance i.e. of 1 lyr at rest is based on a tick rate which for comparative purposes we can say is one tick per second?

2 - Is it not true that in comparison to this tick rate that the clock in motion at 0.866c has a tick rate that is only one half (50%) that of the proper tick rate at rest?

3 - Is it not true that given a tick rate that a clock will accumulate a certain amount of time in direct proportion to that tick rate and that to traverse a spatial dimension of 1 lyr an at rest clock will record the trip time at 0.866c as taking 1.1547 years?

4 - Is it not true that the clock in motion ticking at 0.5 the rate of the rest clock will only record 0.5774 years for the same trip?

5 - Is it not true that if you retain the physics knowledge we have of the events where tr is comparative tick rate of clocks:

1 lyr = 9.4608<sup>15</sup> meters.
0.866c = 2.598<sup>8</sup> meters/second
1 year = 31,536,000 seconds

Case for 1.15 years at 0.866c bassed on standard rest clock tick rate = 1:

d = v * t /tr = 2.598<sup>8</sup> m/s * 1.1547 years *3.1536<sup>7</sup> sec/yr) / 1 = 9.4608<sup>15</sup>meters = 1 lyr.

Case for dilated clock aboard moving craft at 0.866c and tick rate = 0.5:

d = v * t /tr = 2.598<sup>8</sup> m/s * 0.5774 years *3.1536<sup>7</sup> sec/yr) / 0.5 = 9.4608<sup>15</sup>meters = 1 lyr.

Hmmmmm.

17. Is it not true that you just posted a bunch of sentences starting with is it not true?

Hmmmmmm

18. Originally Posted by superluminal
Yes Mac, that sounds right. Where do you see it saying that both clocks will do anything other than OBSERVE the other to be dilated???
Perhaps I need new glasses. Please highlite the term "Observe" in that passage. If you want to contend SR is mere perception in this area, then while I disagree, I will not argue with you but if you (as has James R) want to claim physical realities then we do firmly disagree.

19. Not tonight pal. Im toast. Nighty nite

20. MacM:

This is interesting. This has been explained at least two dozen times and yet you want to pretend it has not.
You must be confusing me with somebody else.

1 - Is it not true that your claim that a distance i.e. of 1 lyr at rest is based on a tick rate which for comparative purposes we can say is one tick per second?
Distance doesn't depend on anybody's tick rate.

Let's assume you are talking about a ruler at rest which is 1 lyr long, shall we?

2 - Is it not true that in comparison to this tick rate that the clock in motion at 0.866c has a tick rate that is only one half (50%) that of the proper tick rate at rest?
If a spaceship carrying another ruler is in motion with respect to the first one at 0.866c, then according to a clock in the rest frame of the first ruler, the spaceship clock will indeed tick at 50% the rate of the clock at rest.

3 - Is it not true that given a tick rate that a clock will accumulate a certain amount of time in direct proportion to that tick rate and that to traverse a spatial dimension of 1 lyr an at rest clock will record the trip time at 0.866c as taking 1.1547 years?
An "at rest" clock doesn't travel anywhere. Only moving clocks traverse spatial distances.

In this case, a clock in the rest frame of the first ruler will record the spaceship as taking 1.15 years to travel the 1 lyr distance at 0.866c.

4 - Is it not true that the clock in motion ticking at 0.5 the rate of the rest clock will only record 0.5774 years for the same trip?
The spaceship clock will record 0.5774 years to travel the same distance, yes. Of course, the spaceship's ruler will measure the distance as being only 0.5 light years.

5 - Is it not true that if you retain the physics knowledge we have of the events where tr is comparative tick rate of clocks
Which frame is tr in?

Case for 1.15 years at 0.866c bassed on standard rest clock tick rate = 1:

d = v * t /tr = 2.5988 m/s * 1.1547 years *3.15367 sec/yr) / 1 = 9.460815meters = 1 lyr.
Actually, it's just d=vt = (2.5988 x 10<sup>8</sup> m/s)(1.15 years) = 9.94608 metres = 1 lyr. No need for tr.

Case for dilated clock aboard moving craft at 0.866c and tick rate = 0.5:

d = v * t /tr = 2.5988 m/s * 0.5774 years *3.15367 sec/yr) / 0.5 = 9.460815meters = 1 lyr.
No. You're mixing frames. It should be:

d' = v't',

where v' is the speed of the first ruler (the spaceship being at rest, of course).

d' = (0.866c)(0.577 years) = 0.5 lyr.

Hence, in the spaceship frame, the first ruler is only 0.5 lyr long. It is length contracted.

No need for tr, again.

Posting Permissions

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