1. I already tried that, in my other threads. The question I'm trying to tackle at this moment is the length contraction issue. And I've already given a link to my other thread. But he's still stuck on reciprocity, which I haven't even used in that derivation.

2. Originally Posted by Rosnet
MacM,

Please! I thought I cleared the reciprocity issue by pointing out that I've used time dilation only one way. And there, I've it in a way to which you agree too. That the <B>moving observer</B>'s clock is dilated. Which you yourself have asserted, plausibly a hundred times, as being a 'physically real effect'.
You seem to miss certain points. Time dilation is only valid with respect to the differential velocity components which comprise the total relative velocity.

SRT just views relative velocity and assumes the assumption of being at rest is arbitrary or frame dependant. What current technology shows us is that only one clock will or can ever be dilated and it is the clock with the greatest velocity component. The magnitude of that dilation being a function of the ratio of gammas of each.

This requires knowing the initial common rest frame; which in real cases you might not know and the only way to determine time dilation would be to actually check each clock and see what the tick ratio is.

I ask you to post the following information: Two clock have a relative velocity of 0.866c. What is their relative tick rates.

A vs B?__________
B vs A?__________

In experiments done thus far only one clock has velocity and one is at rest. That is velocity is a function of acceleration and not relative velocity between clocks produced due to acceleration of one clock.

There is simply no evidence or justification to assume the SRT view of reciprocity.

Yes, I am. Because you've been raising the roof about the invalidity of Reciprocity, <B>and hence</B> the invalidity of Length Contraction.
Please show any link I have ever made between reciprocity and length contraction. You are confused. I have never made any such link. These are two seperate SRT issues both indicating the falicy of SRT.

Since I've shown how Length Contraction <I>has</I> to be real, whether or not Reciprocity is true, you can't use that argument anymore.
Funny I have never used it once. They are totally unrelated. You on the other hand have not responded to the issue of time dilation and spatial contraction BOTH CANNOT be physically real. Mathematics preclude it and since time dilation at least has been observed, recorded and demonstrated, that leaves spatial contraction as being an invalid concept.

The issue here isn't, as I said earlier, the validity of Reciprocity. I'll come to that later. Way later.
My God I really hope you are not claiming reciprocity is a reality. If so you have no concepts of physics.

If you are then please post for us either proof of time dilation reciprocity or at least give a detailed valid physics description of just how you claim given two clocks in relative motion can each physically tick slower than the other and accumulate less time than the other.

Well, MacM says that we're ignoring the fact that the moving clock is dilated. That is, he says the moving observer will see the other person's clock running faster than his own. MacM, please don't ask me to point out where you said this. You can dig it up on your own, if you want to. And I think I've already given some links in the second page. This acutally <I>is</I> saying that reciprocity is false.
I don't have to dig it up. It is fact. Since reciprocity is not possible physically then in comparison to a slow running clock the other clock MUST be running faster.

Without merely reciting SRT (which is totally unsupported in this area) justify anyother conclusion. Your acceptance of this aspect of SRT is merely based on an erroneous assumption that any inertial motion is the equivelent of being at rest. It is not. GPS demonstrates this.

Each may seem at rest but universally there does exist accountability for actual motion and of two inertially moving clocks only one will be dilated and it is the one with the greatest velocity component comprising the total relative velocity.

I am very aware this is in disagreement with SRT predictions but I challenge you to show any information (data) which refutes this conclusion. You cannot.

3. What current technology shows us is that only one clock will or can ever be dilated and it is the clock with the greatest velocity component.
Current technology shows us no such thing, and you know it.

I ask you to post the following information: Two clock have a relative velocity of 0.866c. What is their relative tick rates.
In which frame?

[quote]In experiments done thus far only one clock has velocity and one is at rest.[quote]

Wrong. Both clocks have always been moving, with respect to the Sun, for example. According to you "rest" is not arbitrary, so we can't ignore the motion around the Sun.

There is simply no evidence or justification to assume the SRT view of reciprocity.
Except for 100 years of experiments validating relativity. (Don't bother.)

You on the other hand have not responded to the issue of time dilation and spatial contraction BOTH CANNOT be physically real. Mathematics preclude it...
Only wacky MacM mathematics, wrongly applied to the real world.

If you are then please post for us either proof of time dilation reciprocity or at least give a detailed valid physics description of just how you claim given two clocks in relative motion can each physically tick slower than the other and accumulate less time than the other.
They never do, and nobody says they do. This is a strawman you keep putting up, and you know it. It's much harder to knock down real physics than your strawmen.

Without merely reciting SRT (which is totally unsupported in this area) justify anyother conclusion.
How about you try "reciting" anything which supports your wacky physics, instead of just making repeated, unsupported claims?

Your acceptance of this aspect of SRT is merely based on an erroneous assumption that any inertial motion is the equivelent of being at rest.
So Galileo and Newton and Einstein and everybody in between were all wrong, but MacM the genius is right. Yeah, sure.

4. Originally Posted by James R
Current technology shows us no such thing, and you know it.
Correction. That is precisely what GPS shows and all other relavistic data historically also allows. You have no data which shows otherwise and no data supporting your SRT view which includes reciprocity.

In which frame?

Wrong. Both clocks have always been moving, with respect to the Sun, for example. According to you "rest" is not arbitrary, so we can't ignore the motion around the Sun.
Don't try being silly. You know damn well I am referring to two clocks at inertial rest together and one is then accelerated. You really should try to address these issues and stop trying to dodge with irrelevant side steps.

Except for 100 years of experiments validating relativity. (Don't bother.)
Don't bother indeed. Please show ONE case in your 100 years data that supports reciprocity. Go head. This is a challenge.

Only wacky MacM mathematics, wrongly applied to the real world.
We note once more your relapse into innuendo and failure to address the issues raised in any physics terms.

They never do, and nobody says they do. This is a strawman you keep putting up, and you know it. It's much harder to knock down real physics than your strawmen.
Interesting how your tune keeps changing. Now you want to deny reciprocity advocated by SRT, when I have infact posted the truth numerous times and will do so once again.

********************* Extract ***********************
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.

************************************************** ******
As I have said reciprocity is advocated and unavoidably inherent in SRT.

How about you try "reciting" anything which supports your wacky physics, instead of just making repeated, unsupported claims?
I provided my physics basis. I am waiting for a physics rebuttal. If you don't have one just say so. Don't waste our time with your unsupported innuendo.

So Galileo and Newton and Einstein and everybody in between were all wrong, but MacM the genius is right. Yeah, sure.
One doesn't need to be a genius just above the 3rd grade should suffice. That doesn't speak well of your performance. One would think that such a highly educated and intelligent person about physics could give valid physics responses.

5. Nothing new to respond to there, MacM.

6. Originally Posted by James R
Nothing new to respond to there, MacM.
In your case I thought not since the same questions have remained open for how long now?

8. by MacM:

"Your acceptance of this aspect of SRT is merely based on an erroneous assumption that any inertial motion is the equivelent of being at rest. ”

response by James R:

"So Galileo and Newton and Einstein and everybody in between were all wrong, but MacM the genius is right. Yeah, sure."
================================================== =======

There is something you might help me with, James R. The equation for calculating the total energy of a particle (object) is the following, converted into terms I can post. E = sqrt(p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4) . Doesn't momentum
(p) = mv? If p = 0, the equation reduces to E = mc^2, the 'rest mass'. If the
velocity of the frame (particle) is greater than 0, wouldn't the energy and thus, mass, of the particle be greater than 'at rest'? Isn't electron volts (eV)
the standard way particle physicists indicate the mass of a particle?

9. 2inquisitive:

p=mv is the Newtonian expression. Relativistic momentum is p=gmv, where g is the the Lorentz factor.

The m in the equations for p and E is rest mass, which doesn't change when you change frames, or speed up. However, both p and E change with speed, and speed can be due to a change in motion of the object or a change of frame.

Finally, an electron volt is just another unit of energy.

1 eV = 1.6 x 10<sup>-19</sup> Joules.

Particle physicists often express particle masses in eV for convenience.

For example, the mass of an electron is 9.1 x 10<sup>-31</sup> kg. Plug that into E=mc<sup>2</sup> and you get the rest energy in Joules. Convert to eV and you get that the electron mass is equivalent to 511 keV.

10. Yes, but the 511 keV mass can increase many times. From what I read, particle physicists use the Newtonian p = mv in their equations, the reason I brought it up.
Now, how do you calculate the collision energy produced when two counter-rotating
particle bunches, each moving within a hair of the speed of light, meet? Do you use
the velocity addition formula? For instance, if each proton has an energy of 7 TeV
relative to a stationary target, what do you think will be the collision energy, 14 TeV
or a lessor figure?

11. Yes, but the 511 keV mass can increase many times. From what I read, particle physicists use the Newtonian p = mv in their equations, the reason I brought it up.
p=mv works well provided v is not too big. Most of the time in particle physics, the relativistic formula is necessary, though, and it is the one which is used.

Now, how do you calculate the collision energy produced when two counter-rotating particle bunches, each moving within a hair of the speed of light, meet? Do you use the velocity addition formula? For instance, if each proton has an energy of 7 TeV relative to a stationary target, what do you think will be the collision energy, 14 TeV or a lessor figure?
Depends what you mean by "energy". Total energy is made up of rest mass energy plus kinetic energy. In particle physics, the energies given are sometimes kinetic, sometimes total. If your 7 and 14 TeV are total energies, then in a collision they simply add. If, on the other hand, they are kinetic only, then we need to include any energies resulting from changes of mass into energy or vice-versa in the collision, as well.

The velocity addition formula must be used when adding velocities in different frames, or you'll get the wrong answers, unless all the relevant velocities are small compared to the speed of light.

12. Lets take a look at the physics claimed in Velocity Addition, shall we?

Given Observer A, B and C, where A is our referance frame and B and C are spacecraft, further that C has on board a missle which can be fired "D".

It is specificed that "B" and "D" are of the same mass and have identical propulsion systems.

B and C are launched from A simultaneously and with equal acceleration and duration reaching 0.5c relative to A.

At that point C launches D and B simultaneously fires his engines to keep pace side by side with D. Since B and D are identical in mass and have like propulsion they accelerate equally and consume fuel equally.

Yet if we look from A's vantage point B will have one velocity while D has another velocity even though they are running side by side.

This is inevitable since relativity treats the velocity achieved by consumption of fuel and vehicle mass differently for B which is nothing more than a classical change in velocity between A and B but C is "v" and D becomes "u" in the Velocity Addition Formula vel = (v + u) / (1 + vu / c<sup>2</sup>)

13. MacM:

You're wrong again. Hard to work out why, since you haven't said how you attempted to use the velocity addition formula. I guess that you just stuffed up whatever you did.

14. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

You're wrong again. Hard to work out why, since you haven't said how you attempted to use the velocity addition formula. I guess that you just stuffed up whatever you did.
Wrong once more James R. I haven't "Stuffed up" anything. I'm attempting to have a casual conversation among people that have an understanding of the subject and can think without having to clutter the issue with meaningless mathematics.

I suppose (since I have done it correctly numerous times before) that I must now go to the problem of actually showing the mathematical results of the case otherwise you will simply whine as usual.

15. Mac,

Out of curiosity, you must have some theory as to why we all read your analysis of "reciprocity" among other things, and don't get it. What's wrong with us?

16. I suppose (since I have done it correctly numerous times before) that I must now go to the problem of actually showing the mathematical results of the case otherwise you will simply whine as usual.
That would be a welcome change, MacM. Let's see some actual mathematics from you.

17. Originally Posted by superluminal
Mac,

Out of curiosity, you must have some theory as to why we all read your analysis of "reciprocity" among other things, and don't get it. What's wrong with us?
That is a good question. Being pragmatic I suppose you are ALL inept or I am a poor communicator.

18. Originally Posted by James R
That would be a welcome change, MacM. Let's see some actual mathematics from you.
Save your innuendo. I have posted mathematical velocity addition, gamma, time dilation, mass change, all correctly. I have no inceptive to play your stupid game.

Now try to address the issues raised in physics terms. That would be a nice change for you.

19. I would really like to see some math, it makes things easier to understand, you can take it bit by bit and examine it.

20. Changed your mind, MacM? That was quick. You don't like being asked to justify your silly claims, do you?

#### Posting Permissions

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