1. Originally Posted by MacM
You may be finally starting to recognize the problem with todays current physics. If you accept SR as advocated you must also assume that the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe must be due to inverse lorentz contraction since the velocities at or near the edge of the universe are approaching v = c and for disance to be increasing the objects must be decelerating not accelerating.
Spoken as only one who never studied SR could speak it. SR doesn't talk about cosmology, it only works in flat spaces with no gravity, and situations approximating this condition. The need for an "inverse Lorentz contraction" is a fiction of your own imagination- you would need to understand GR before you could even begin talking about the expansion of the universe in terms of relativity.

2. Originally Posted by MacM
Sorry Pete. This is completely off point and has not been at issue. QQ raised the question suggesting that if the pilot was at rest according to SR (meaning the other air craft had all the velocity represented by the relative velocity being measured, that he would be in trouble.

He posed no question about one being at rest to himself. That is just a stupid obvious assertion.
In this situation, "At rest according to relativity" (galilieo's relativity as well as SR) means exactly that the pilot is at rest with respect to himself.

That "obvious assertion" is what you appear to be calling ludicrous.

2 - If I am not mistaken you initially stated "air from the rear" and and that is why I commented that you had assumed a westward flight when the pilot stopped.
You can read what I initially stated in post 211 of this thread.

So no I do not agree
You do not agree that the plane moving forward relative to the ground is the same (according to Galileo and Newton) as saying that the ground is moving backward relative to the plane?

Mac, you said before that "ALL velocity is relative to something."
So, if the plane is moving forward relative to the ground, then surely you'll agree that the ground is moving backward relative to the plane?

Or are you going to continue to insist that Galileo was wrong and that something that has accelerated can not be considered to be at rest?

3. Pete while we wait for MacM to post:
So, if the plane is moving forward relative to the ground, then surely you'll agree that the ground is moving backward relative to the plane?
In pure relativity of velocity this is surely the case however could it not be argued that in the case of time dilation this may not be the case?
Given that at some stage the plane and the planet were inertial and the plane NOT the planet accellerated to become relative?
I think the arguement is not about relativity of velocity but more about relativity of dilations, in that somehow you can arbitarilly consider both accellerated and non-accellerated observers as having the SAME potential for time dilation.
This is tantamount to saying that the earth accelerated whilst the plane was still on the runway providing lift and eventually flying velocity.
If you can see what I am attempting to describe then maybe youcan tellme what I have been describing....

If you are going to apply relativity why not include the relativity of accelleration as well? For surely you must to provide a sound basis for the relativity of time dilations

4. Originally Posted by CptBork
Spoken as only one who never studied SR could speak it. SR doesn't talk about cosmology, it only works in flat spaces with no gravity, and situations approximating this condition. The need for an "inverse Lorentz contraction" is a fiction of your own imagination- you would need to understand GR before you could even begin talking about the expansion of the universe in terms of relativity.
Don't be a twit. I've likely been around SR longer than yourself and I know full well that they have given themselves an escape goat by claiming it only applies to moving through space and not space expansion or contraction.

The problem with that is that SR claims to produce contraction (and hence expansion if decelleration is involved) so you are left with "We will pick what physics we want to recognize" syndrome.

Such as the assertion that particle entanglement doesn't violate the v=c restriction because no information is transferred. What a load of self serving crap that is.

1 - You assume to know that partricles can communicate and don't do so by sharing information.

2 - For one particle to know the condition of another andthat it has changed it clearly requires the transfer of information.

You people are pathetic when it comes to making excuses to protect your flawed theory.

5. I tend to believe that we are getting to the heart of this issue that MacM and as it turns out I have with SR.
It can be summed up with a simple question:

"Why isn't accelleration also considered in relative terms and as part of the workings of SRT?"
or in another version
"Why is accelleration excluded from relativity?"

The answer to this question would help resolve the issue that MacM is raising regarding his clocks and perception vs actual.

6. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Pete while we wait for MacM to post:
In pure relativity of velocity this is surely the case however could it not be argued that in the case of time dilation this may not be the case?
You can argue that if you like, but it's been done before, nearly 100 years ago, by people much brighter than you and I. It seems that your approach does not lead to a model that is self-consistent, consistent with experiment, and without arbitrary ad-hoc assumptions.

7. Originally Posted by Pete
You can argue that if you like, but it's been done before, nearly 100 years ago, by people much brighter than you and I. It seems that your approach does not lead to a model that is self-consistent, consistent with experiment, and without arbitrary ad-hoc assumptions.
interesting opinion, however..... I fail to see how that addresses the question?

8. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
"Why isn't accelleration also considered in relative terms and as part of the workings of SRT?"
It is
"why is accelleration excluded from relativity?"
It is not.

The difficulty we have is that you and MacM (and others, eg Cangas and Geistkiesel) are stuck on more basic elements of physics. You can't yet seem to understand even how simple distance and velocity measurements work in the relativity of Galileo and Newton.

9. Originally Posted by Pete
It is

It is not.

The difficulty we have is that you and MacM are stuck on more basic elements of physics. You can't yet seem to understand even how simple distance and velocity measurements work in the relativity of Galileo and Newton.
and how are both observers in a two observer gedanken subject to acceleration when only one observer has actually accelerated?

10. it appears to this uneducated person that:
1] You have relativity of velocity [can switch frames ]
2] You have relativity of Time dilation [can switch frames]
3] You do not have relativity of accelleration [can not switch frames]
Maybe if this unenlightened person who is seeking enlightenment and move away from even the basics of logic and sound reasoning can be enlightened by your posts and commentary?

11. Originally Posted by Pete
In this situation, "At rest according to relativity" (galilieo's relativity as well as SR) means exactly that the pilot is at rest with respect to himself.

That "obvious assertion" is what you appear to be calling ludicrous.
Yes I would call that ludricrus. It is clear that it is claimed ALL velocity is relative to somethingelse. You cannot simply say I have a velocity of 1,000 Mph such velocity has to be relative to some other object or spatial ordinate.

It is clear that v=0 is a velocity value and therefor v=0 must be relative to something other than ones self. Compared to ones self one NEVER has motion and would forever be at rest.

If you can claim to be at rest with out reference then I can claim to have velocity without reference. Both would be in error.

Originally Posted by Pete
You can read what I initially stated in post 211 of this thread.
I stand corrected. I mis-read your post to say from the rear.

Originally Posted by Pete
You do not agree that the plane moving forward relative to the ground is the same (according to Galileo and Newton) as saying that the ground is moving backward relative to the plane?
No it is not the same. That is the error inSR and cause of reciprocity which does no9t work and is why you consider who switched frames so as to determine who has actual velocity.

Originally Posted by Pete
Mac, you said before that "ALL velocity is relative to something."

So, if the plane is moving forward relative to the ground, then surely you'll agree that the ground is moving backward relative to the plane?
Yes but that does not mean they both have motion. Motion and relative velocity are two distinctly different things.

Originally Posted by Pete
Or are you going to continue to insist that Galileo was wrong and that something that has accelerated can not be considered to be at rest?
Yes and no. If at inertial rest and I accelerate and become inertial again it may or may not be at rest. Also at rest relative to what?

If I accelerate toward the moon and become inertial and then accelerate back toward the earth the same amount I will be back at my initial rest condition. However that inertial rest conditon may well have motion from prior accelerations.

12. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
and how are both observers in a two observer gedanken subject to acceleration when only one observer has actually accelerated?
The same observer accelerates in all inertial reference frames. Relativity does not say that the other observer accelerates.

*note*
It is possible to consider the accelerating observer's reference frame, but since it is an inertial reference frame there are things that happen in that frame that are artifacts of the frame's acceleration; they are not real. Such considerations will only serve to confuse this discussion, in which we are stuck on simpler ideas.

13. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
Pete while we wait for MacM to post:

In pure relativity of velocity this is surely the case however could it not be argued that in the case of time dilation this may not be the case?
Given that at some stage the plane and the planet were inertial and the plane NOT the planet accellerated to become relative?
I think the arguement is not about relativity of velocity but more about relativity of dilations, in that somehow you can arbitarilly consider both accellerated and non-accellerated observers as having the SAME potential for time dilation.
This is tantamount to saying that the earth accelerated whilst the plane was still on the runway providing lift and eventually flying velocity.
If you can see what I am attempting to describe then maybe youcan tellme what I have been describing....

If you are going to apply relativity why not include the relativity of accelleration as well? For surely you must to provide a sound basis for the relativity of time dilations
Your point is right on. They will scream that acceleration is non-inertial and not an SR problem but that is just trying to hide.

The fact is acceleration can be handled by SR it is just more complex. Such that at any given instant during acceleration you have a specific velocity.

The consequences of acceleration in SR are resolved via integration.

14. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
... "Why isn't accelleration also considered in relative terms and as part of the workings of SRT?"
or in another version "Why is accelleration excluded from relativity?"...
I would give you a slightly different answer than Pete did in post 248 on the first question: The S in SRT, stands for "special" What make it special is that by definition it is restricted to ONLY inertial frames. This restriction was made to keep it more simple than the General Relativity Theory - that has consideralble more complex math etc. - I no long understand it well.

Pete is correct that acceleartion is NOT excluded for relativity theory, only from Special RT.

15. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
I tend to believe that we are getting to the heart of this issue that MacM and as it turns out I have with SR.
It can be summed up with a simple question:

"Why isn't accelleration also considered in relative terms and as part of the workings of SRT?"
or in another version
"Why is accelleration excluded from relativity?"

The answer to this question would help resolve the issue that MacM is raising regarding his clocks and perception vs actual.
Just to repeat. I do not contend that acceleration affects clocks. Acceleration causes veloicty and it is veloicty that affects the clocks.

But unlike SR I have enough common sense to know that a resting clock that is experiencing relative velocity to something that is accelerating is not in of itself changing velocity or has any motion and is not subject to change.

Such reciprocity is ludricrus and has never been observed and on the surface is physically impossible.

16. Originally Posted by Pete
The same observer accelerates in all inertial reference frames. Relativity does not say that the other observer accelerates.

*note*
It is possible to consider the accelerating observer's reference frame, but since it is an inertial reference frame there are things that happen in that frame that are artifacts of the frame's acceleration; they are not real. Such considerations will only serve to confuse this discussion, in which we are stuck on simpler ideas.
Pete I appreciate your point however I think you have slightly missed mine. That being to claim relativity for time dilation which I am confident SR usually does [ frame switching with out a problem] yet not include the same relative or symmetrical use of accelleration data is how all this problem that Mac M istrying to resolve is generated.

One clock only can have dilation and is not able to be frame switched because dilation IMO is directly related to changes in inertia, which only the accellerated clock can aquire.
If you have two observers lying back to back and an explosion takes place between them that accellerates both observers equally in opposite directions then how would you describe the dilations and velocities of both observers?

17. Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
interesting opinion, however..... I fail to see how that addresses the question?
It doesn't. To hide behind Einstien and claim "He was smarter than you" is just that to hide behind authority. Einstien was smart perhaps even a genius but that does not make him invinceable as we know he was not.

He proposed a static universe and created mathematics to prove it but was shown wrong and subsequently had to eliminate that view.

He claimed "Relative Velocity" causes phsyical changes and published SR but when it was pointed out that reciprocity results in the "Twin Paradox" he over a decade later came out with GR and then said the twin that switched frames broke the symmetry.

Failing to acknowledge of course that doing so he was no longer just considering relative velocity but actual velocity due to having accelerated.

18. Originally Posted by MacM
Just to repeat. I do not contend that acceleration affects clocks. Acceleration causes veloicty and it is veloicty that affects the clocks.

But unlike SR I have enough common sense to know that a resting clock that is experiencing relative velocity to something that is accelerating is not in of itself changing velocity or has any motion and is not subject to change.

Such reciprocity is ludricrus and has never been observed and on the surface is physically impossible.
Agrees it is indeed the resultant velocity gained by acceleration that generates the dilations, however it is the acceleration or battle against inertia that is IMO the causation of "velocity induced dilation". And that inertial change can only occur with acceleration against inertia.

19. Originally Posted by MacM
Yes I would call that ludricrus. It is clear that it is claimed ALL velocity is relative to somethingelse. You cannot simply say I have a velocity of 1,000 Mph such velocity has to be relative to some other object or spatial ordinate.
So, you agree that all velocity is relative to something?
But, you don't agree that the plane's velocity relative to the plane is zero?

It is clear that v=0 is a velocity value and therefor v=0 must be relative to something other than ones self. Compared to ones self one NEVER has motion and would forever be at rest.
You contradict yourself, Mac. But, the second sentence is sufficient:
"Compared to oneself, one never has motion and would forever be at rest."
That sentence is precisely what relativity says, and precisely what you seem to claim is ludicrous.

Or perhaps you are confused by accelerating things? Well, you can consider velocity relative to something at a different time.

For example:
A car accelerates from zero to 100mph. The velocity of the car is 100mph relative to it's motion before accelerating.

No it is not the same. That is the error in SR and cause of reciprocity which does not work and is why you consider who switched frames so as to determine who has actual velocity.

Yes but that does not mean they both have motion. Motion and relative velocity are two distinctly different things.
SR doesn't say anything different to Galileo in this case.
Are you saying that Galileo was wrong?

Yes and no. If at inertial rest and I accelerate and become inertial again it may or may not be at rest. Also at rest relative to what?
Exactly! That's exactly what Galileo and SR say - that you can't tell from any history of acceleration whether a thing is at rest, and that 'rest' is a relative term.

20. Originally Posted by Pete
It is

It is not.

The difficulty we have is that you and MacM (and others, eg Cangas and Geistkiesel) are stuck on more basic elements of physics. You can't yet seem to understand even how simple distance and velocity measurements work in the relativity of Galileo and Newton.

WRONG! I understand as well if not better than yourself. The fact that I rationally reject it is not the same as having physicas problems. I know full well the time-space concept but I falat out reject it as a valid physical concept.

I reject it for good cause and my view is consistant with all emperical data. The fact that I don't agree with a relative veloicty view seems natural since you don't use one in SR either. You rely on who switched frames (i.e. - accelerated and has actual velocity not merely relative velocity).

That is different.

#### Posting Permissions

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