MacM's Claims

[Aer]

are you saying that Galilean relativity is correct, and there is no limit to relative velocity?

That is EXACTLY his position, you didn't know? MacM loves absolute velocity.

[cato]

w = v + u / (1 + vu /c2) = (0.5 + 0.9) /(1 + .5 * .9) = 0.9655c
what the hell is that anyway? could you please go back and edit that. unless you claim that D left at .9c from C, and somehow ends up at or below .866c WRT (which is moving away faster than C is, and thus should be even larger of a number)

I am trying to show you where you went wrong but it is such a mess that its hard to do.

[Aer]

MacM, why do I see so many similarities between Dowdye's website and the word dowdy:

lacking in smartness or taste; (makes absurd claims, site is displayed on a grade-school level)

primly out of date; (copyright in 1920?)

I smell something, and it stinks

[MacM]

MacM: "I suggest that claiming B increases 0.366c from the point it was at 0.5c physics not rhetoric." ... relativie to A, not C

MacM: "I suggest that showing that D moves concurrent and side by side throughout the flight schedule is physics and not rhetoric." ... You stipulated this, but yes, it is what happens in the scenario you provided.

MacM: "I suggest that to claim that B and D have different velocities in this respect is rhetoric and not physics." ... B and D have the same velocity wrt A, and that is .866c, they also have the same velocity wrt C, and that is .65c

These statements are mere recitals of SRT, they are not physics justifications.

[Aer]

These statements are mere recitals of SRT, they are not physics justifications.

Yes, MacM, "You stipulated this, but yes, it is what happens in the scenario you provided." is a recital of SR.

[MacM]

Is he the guy that published a paper a couple years ago that was written in 1920? And claims no time dilation among other things.

Please do not embarrass yourself by repeating James R's false allegations. He published in the late 1990's and never said there was no time dilation.

I might suggest you actually read his material before trying to wrongfully comment on it.

BTW he is a NASA, Phd, Physicist. What are your qualifications?

[Aer]

BTW he is a NASA, Phd, Physicist.

What are his accomplishments at NASA? Paper pushing?

What are your qualifications?

I've just only recently graduated with a degree in engineering. I never hid the fact that I didn't graduate in physics. But that doesn't mean I didn't have to take physics classes.

[cato]

look mac, SR is widely accepted, it is up to you to prove that it is wrong. we have shown that D does, in fact, move side by side with B. all you have to do is have it leave with a relative velocity of .6455c WRT C and everything works fine. where is the problem with having it leave C at .6455c WRT C?

[MacM]

It has nothing to do with "uncloaking", it has to do with changing from A's frame to C's frame. If you want to try to claim that all accelerations should be the same no matter what frame you choose to look from, go ahead, but you will be dismissed as the fool you are.

D accelerates inside "C" precisely concurrent with B and continues to accelerate concurrent with B. "C" is a mock point of referance it vanishes when cloaked.

You have not justifed claiming D is any differeant that B and B increases )mass and thrust - basic physics) by 0..366c from the point it is at 0.5c wrt A and from wrt C = 0. Don't dare claim B accelerates differently relative to C without showing some physics consideration for its change in velocity due to mass vs thrust.

Otherise you will continue to be the fool you have shown yourself to be. Spouting nonsense theory with any physics justification. Sad really.

[Aer]

Don't dare claim B accelerates differently relative to C without showing some physics consideration for its change in velocity due to mass vs thrust.

OK - F=γ³ma
Force required for constant acceleration increases as the relative velocity increases. Easy.

[cato]

D moves at .866c WRT A at the end, that is a difference of .366c, you are right about that. however, if you are looking from A the entire time, you have no reason to use the VAF, and I think that is your problem (perhaps not the only one)

all you have to do is have it leave with a relative velocity of .6455c WRT C and everything works fine. where is the problem with having it leave C at .6455c WRT C?

good night. I look forward to seeing your answers in the morning/afternoon (whenever I check back).

[MacM]

w = v + u / (1 + vu /c2) = (0.5 + 0.9) /(1 + .5 * .9) = 0.9655c
what the hell is that anyway? could you please go back and edit that. unless you claim that D left at .9c from C, and somehow ends up at or below .866c WRT (which is moving away faster than C is, and thus should be even larger of a number)

I am trying to show you where you went wrong but it is such a mess that its hard to do.

Rub those sleepy eyes. This has nothing to do with the scenario except to show the purpose or function of the VAF. The math is perfectly correct.

[MacM]

look mac, SR is widely accepted, it is up to you to prove that it is wrong. we have shown that D does, in fact, move side by side with B. all you have to do is have it leave with a relative velocity of .6455c WRT C and everything works fine. where is the problem with having it leave C at .6455c WRT C?

I didn't think you could justify it. Now we know it.

[MacM]

OK - F=γ³ma
Force required for constant acceleration increases as the relative velocity increases. Easy.

Sure. Now just recall whatever you do to D you must also do to B since they have a common flight schedule.

[2inquisitive]

OK - F=γ³ma
Force required for constant acceleration increases as the relative velocity increases. Easy.

In which frame of reference, Aer? You claim 'rest mass' never changes, so
why should the force required to accelerate the same mass increase in the
mass's rest frame? If the relative velocity is in reference to a distant galaxy
receeding from the mass at near the speed of light, does the force required
for acceleration differ from the force required for acceleration relative to a
galaxy that is approaching us (the mass) such as the Andromedia Galaxy?

[GMontag]

Right. Now do the manly thing and justify your claim as I have repeatedly requested. I am very well aware of the claims of SRT, which is why I posted this scenario. But the issue is for you to justify your claim. Not merely parraot the claims of SRT.

What claim? You falsely represented what SRT would predict and I corrected you.

You really are dense aren't you. Stop assuming you know so much more than other posters and pay attention.

Not other posters, just you .

You are obligated to justify claiming the 0.645c figure in lieu of the 0.366c figure. I have shown that the flight schedules are the same for B and D. I have shown that B increases its velocity by 0.366c from the point of launch of D wrt A and frankly from C.

No you haven't shown that, you assumed that (incorrectly). B accelerates from .5c to .866c in A's frame. That means it accelerates from 0 to .646c in C's frame.

You are right it is really quite simple. Only it is not justified and you have not justified it by physics.

Justify it.

I see you are using your typical tactic of claim an inconsistency in SRT, then when its pointed out to you that you've just made a stupid mistake yet again, change the topic to SRT not matching reality. Does this mean you are conceding that SRT is *not* inconsistent with itself in this scenario?

OK, Mac, answer this question then:

In C's frame, when C launches D, B has a velocity of 0 wrt to C, yes?

At the end of the scenario, what is B's velocity wrt to C in C's frame?

EDIT: please answer both what you think SRT predicts it will be and what you think it will be.

By standard physics it has already been pointed out that you have a given mass, a given thrust and a given change in velocity 0.366c. Frankly which is relative to both A and C equally. It requires no different thrust or acceleration to achieve a 0.366c velocity wrt C than it does wrt A.

However, SRT would have you treat it differently when viewed from A if referance to C. If I claim v = 0.5c and u = 0.366c then SRT wants to claim w = 0.732c and we know that is nonsense since B actually has a velocity of 0.866c wrt A created by increasing velocity by 0.366c from the 0.5c point in the flight schedule.

w is velocity B wrt A, v is velocity of C wrt A and u is velocity of B wrt C.

Wow, is it really that hard to answer a simple question? I'll ask you again, in C's frame, what is B's final velocity?

You have not justifed claiming D is any differeant that B

Why would I try to justify a claim I've never made?

and B increases )mass and thrust - basic physics) by 0..366c from the point it is at 0.5c wrt A and from wrt C = 0.

No. B accelerates from .5c to .866c in A's frame, but it accelerates from 0c to .646c in C's frame.

Don't dare claim B accelerates differently relative to C without showing some physics consideration for its change in velocity due to mass vs thrust.

B is more massive in A's frame than in C's frame due to B's velocity. Therefore it makes sense that the same thrust would accelerate B more in C's frame than in A's frame.

[James R]

MacM:

You continue to recite SRT but provide absolutely NO physics justification for your claim.

SRT is a physics justification.

[MacM]

MacM:

SRT is a physics justification.

As long as that is your position then there is nothing to discuss here. You are merely citing the good book with no justification.

[MacM]

What claim? You falsely represented what SRT would predict and I corrected you.

False. Selfserving diatribe.

Not other posters, just you .

False. Innuendo.

No you haven't shown that, you assumed that (incorrectly). B accelerates from .5c to .866c in A's frame. That means it accelerates from 0 to .646c in C's frame.

Only in the conmcept of SRT. That is not a physics response. It is unsupported rhetoric.

I see you are using your typical tactic of claim an inconsistency in SRT, then when its pointed out to you that you've just made a stupid mistake yet again, change the topic to SRT not matching reality. Does this mean you are conceding that SRT is *not* inconsistent with itself in this scenario?

You should either learn to read or to not attempt to distort others posts. Show where I have claimed SRT is inconsistant within itself. I haven't. I have said it is unjustified. And you have not justified it. You merely mimic others and recite theory. I have further properly calculated SRT mathematics. You just don't like the results.

Wow, is it really that hard to answer a simple question? I'll ask you again, in C's frame, what is B's final velocity?

I have answered this both ways several times and chose to not continue this charade.

Either justify the physics of SRT or admit you have none other than an over riding belief system. You have no emperical data to support your claim. It is nothing but a mathematical projection based on a poor physics basis.

No. B accelerates from .5c to .866c in A's frame, but it accelerates from 0c to .646c in C's frame.

So says SRT. I say you (and SRT) is full of crap. I have asked you to support your claims orr justify your claims by physics, You either decline or simple cannot.

We note that fact.

B is more massive in A's frame than in C's frame due to B's velocity. Therefore it makes sense that the same thrust would accelerate B more in C's frame than in A's frame.

Oh, really. HeHeHe. What a lot of double talk nonsense. One day perhaps you will become intelligent enough to realize that there is a differance between not understanding relativity and understanding it and rjecting it for more plausiable concepts. Concepts which produce all results supported by emperical data and only differ at the extremes and in areas unsupported in SRT. So you have nothing to gloat about.

I prefer to keep my physics rational and consistant with emperical data. You are free to follow your irrational concept as long as you like.

[James R]

MacM:

As long as that is your position then there is nothing to discuss here. You are merely citing the good book with no justification.

It seems you can't even make use of the "good book" correctly. You complain it is inconsistent, and keep saying that even after your errors have been exposed for all to see.

There are problems with relativity, but this nonsense you keep spouting is just silly. All you are proving is your total lack of comprehension of the theory you're trying to knock down.