07-20-09, 09:31 AM #341
You sir are wrong. Just as James wants to assert that the stand alone formuas cannot and should not be sued (so why do they exist?) your rejection of acceleration is SR is equally flawed.
07-20-09, 09:47 AM #342
Poatulate - 2) to assume without proof to be true, real or necessary
Now that the basis for your theory are properly laid.
[QUOTE=James R;2314946] It is not possible that parts of SR are correct and other parts are wrong, unless one or both of the postulates above is wrong.[/'quote]
This is out and out Bulls___. There is simply no factual basis to claim because one aspect of something appears valid all aspects must be. That is utter nonsense and very unscientific.
Point beeg it is not the same photon moving invariantly but different generated photons.
Last edited by MacM; 07-20-09 at 09:53 AM.
07-20-09, 09:57 AM #343
07-20-09, 09:58 AM #344
07-20-09, 10:01 AM #345
07-20-09, 10:04 AM #346
Shhhsh what a load of crap.
07-20-09, 10:13 AM #347
Not really. Take a rope and shake it in unison from both ends and set up a wave. The Rope is not traveling. A wave on the rope is produced. The rope just jiggles.
In my view that is the situation with photons they are the jiggles along the rope and there are virtually an infinite number of energetic ropes in the uinverse which lead to seeing jiggles at v = c regardless of you relative velocity to the clusters of ropes.
Shake a bowl of jello, the jello isn't traveling it jiggles. Photons are jiggles in the undetected fabric of space.
07-20-09, 10:17 AM #348
07-20-09, 10:20 AM #349
Please post one case of emperical data showing that relative veloicty caused a resting clock to dilate physically. I didn't say appears to be dilated but was dilated when compared to the traveling clock in a common rest frame.
07-20-09, 10:28 AM #350
That is you cannot just spot two objects moving relative to you and factually conclude which has a higher or lower tick rate to each other because your vantage point is not necessarily their common rest reference.
You can calculate what you will "Percieve" to be each of their tick rates to you but that is not related to what their actual tick rates are.
07-20-09, 10:45 AM #351
07-20-09, 11:22 AM #352
Tell me what's wrong with my simple SR solution to the twins paradox, since you claim Einstein needed to invent GR to solve this specific problem. What aspect of this solution is so inconsistent with relativity that you can dismiss it in one sentence as irrelevant babble and dogma? If you just came here to rant about why you personally dislike relativity and to dismiss anyone who refutes you as a brainwashed lackey, then there are more appropriate subforums where you could have posted your rant. This place is for serious physics debate and discussion including, where necessary, details.
07-20-09, 12:07 PM #353
I have been busy so have not gone to your "evidence link." Also because the last one you sent me to a link, it was just an Email one guy sent to another.
I'm still waiting for real evidence that standard* SR uses acceleration - namely an equation with place to insert acceleration of something into the equation.
*I understand that your version of SR does - infact requires one of two clocks to accelerate away form your "common rest frame."
07-20-09, 12:14 PM #354
Billy, just to let you know, SR is fully equipped to handle any acceleration as long as it's not caused by gravity. If you know a rocket ship's position or acceleration or velocity as a function of time, that's really all you need to describe all the relativistic effects. Accelerations are handled in SR by setting up a series of reference frames moving at different velocities, so that at any given moment the rocket ship or whatever may be considered at rest in one of these frames, and then the calculations for that brief instant of time can be done from there before being converted back into the original frame.
07-20-09, 01:17 PM #355
In fact, considering the laws of force and acceleration as revised by Special Relativity is one of the central arguments leading to , an energy-mass relationship that already had experimental support even before 1905 and is automatically derived as a consequence of relativity.
07-20-09, 01:18 PM #356
07-20-09, 01:52 PM #357
You have already said:
“I have always said a simple absolute view does not work." in prior post
And I have already replied:
"Neither I nor SR hold an "absolute view."
In fact SR & I refute that view and say only Relative Velocities are important. I also state there is no reason to think any frame is at absolute rest or even to be preferred (except your own frame, for convenience in most cases) over others. - I. e. there is nothing special about using velocities wrt your "last common rest frame."
I am beginning to lose faith in your creative powers as you again drag out this irrelevant comment about your always refuting the absolute POV.
Surely you could at least find a new non-relevant diversion.
What I have been trying to teach you is:
(1) To use symbolic notation that clearly defines what it is you are speaking of; which clock it is about; & which frame's clocks are measuring. For example when speaking of Time Dilation of clock B as measured by clocks in different frame C, I compactly indicate this by TDBc. You essentially never in your words only description tell what the subscript "c" is specifying as you assume it does not matter - I.e. you assume SR is wrong and that there is only one TDB. Then proceed in circular reasoning way to prove there is only one TDB.
(2) That in most case of clocks in the universe there never was a mutual common rest frame. Even for clocks now in two rocket ships that launched from the same launch pad at the same time they could not have a common rest frame if they were built in the rocket ships after they were in different inertial frames.
You are in the embarrassing position of saying that one clock in rocket ship A, which was accelerated from still resting clock B in their common mutual rest frame is dilated, but an identical one (say both are cesium atomic clocks) which was built in the rocket ship after it was coasting in an inertial frame and thus was never accelerated is not time dilated.
I.e. MacM's SR, which places all the time dilation effect on the prior acceleration* history of one clock wrt to the other predicts:
Two identical clocks, at sitting side, by side do run at different rate just because one of them (and only one of them) had a prior acceleration!
*If you want to say "no, it is not the prior accelration, but the velocity that produced, which causes the time dialtion, let assume the cesium for the "built in space" clock was collected by the rocket flying thru some cloud of cesium. Or perhaps there are two types of velocity? One produce by F=ma and another by the expansion of the universe effect on different locations? It realy is hard to pin you down to one unchanging POV. (You have abandon your POV you confirmed in post 93 after my post 118 and that is only one example of your "flexability.")
Last edited by Billy T; 07-20-09 at 02:07 PM.
07-20-09, 03:00 PM #358
"The simple fact that acceleration can not be treated in the same way as velocity relatively speaking is the key to what this issue is about." and some questions that you must ask again differently for me you get what you are asking.
It is not at all strange that std. SR does not treat acceleration in a reciprocal way like it does velocity. - Because Std SR does not ever consider acceleration at all - only "MacM SR" thinks the prior period of acceleration is important and symmetry breaking. So only one clock has time dilation, TD, as measured by the seconds of the other clock. MacM claims that reciprocal TD has never been verified (and also that std SR is false because it cannot be)
AFAIK, the only time a discussion of SR results (not SR itself) that acceleration is even mentioned, is in the "twin paradox" to tell which twin is younger when rejoined. In this case, as all others, Sr is only concerned with the inertial phases - no details about the accelerations even given usually.
I gave a test design with supersonic jet flying at constant altitude (for same transit delays of the start and stop pulses sent to the accumulator in the jet) over two well synchronized ground clocks (one on US east coast and other on the west coast) and other details such as pulse code timing patterns in the transmission to the plane, which can easily tell time to 0.001 micro second resolutions. So a test is possible despite what MacM says.
Last edited by Billy T; 07-20-09 at 03:07 PM.
07-20-09, 03:36 PM #359
Assuming for convience that they have the same x-axis line and all motions are along it is also convenient. The speed of C(0,0) wrt E(0,0) then can be designated as Vce but that does not imply there must be anything in either frame an explosion can destroy anymore than an explosion can destory the math that states 1+2 = 3.
Working with speeds instead of vectors is easier for most but does require you to tell which way along the x-axis the motion is. (Some people get confused by fact one of a pair of symmetric opposite velocities is a negative vector - speed is always positive.)
I also fail to see any advantage to your explosion scenario. Why not just have the quite commen two rockets, A & B, leave C(0,0) simultaneously with equal accelerations oppositely directed along the common X axis until reaching speed VAc and VBc where they then foreever coast if you want to construct a symmetric scenario (one with VAc = VBc)?
This is not only easy for all to grasp (most have seen it before) and has almost self evident notation available, but also does not require imposible infinite forces and accelerations to give A & B their speeds in zero time as I understand your explosion between to observers un realistically assumes.
PS to Capt Bork -I am working my way forward and will read your "again" post when I come to it before reply, but think we only differ in symantics as to what is included in SR, not the ways it can be applied with zullions of sequential inertial and limiting increments of time to handled accelration case.
Last edited by Billy T; 07-20-09 at 04:17 PM.
07-20-09, 03:50 PM #360
As far as acceleration in the twins paradox goes, there's no real need to consider it. If the spacefaring twin has a long journey (i.e. 20 years as seen from Earth) at speeds close to c, and by comparison their acceleration only takes a day or so, it makes almost no difference whatsoever to the end result. So one twin ages half as much as the other if the acceleration is instant, and you give or take at the very most a day depending on how they accelerated during that one day... big whoop.
By Gustav in forum SF Open GovernmentLast Post: 04-24-08, 02:27 AMReplies: 7
By Orleander in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 10-28-07, 12:45 AMReplies: 16
By Vern in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 05-05-07, 01:24 AMReplies: 43
By MacM in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 02-28-06, 04:20 AMReplies: 345