Thread: Mac's Final Relativity Thread

  1. #521
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Yes definitely lets join forces. We already agree on the basic principle as first stated above. I.e. "I'm right and your wrong." is the powerful argument that MacM and QQ etc use so hell, even MacM and QQ will join forces with us under that banner. Let get cracking team.

    On second thought by Edit:

    QQ posts while I was writing with photo of flying pig called photon carrying the energy. You captain did the same with photo of globe topping octipus.

    Fools both of you! Providing evidence that you are wrong.

    Here between the two line below is what the camera records when taking picture of my INVISIBLE UNICORNS:

    --------------------------



    --------------------------

    Obviously I was right! (You never see the transporters of light energy.)
    bah! to the philosophy forum you go... actually make that the "pseudo philosophy forum" or didn't you know philosophy is always pseudo...

  2. #522
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    QQ & Captn

    see edit in post 518, he heh ehh got you!

    PS, by edit:

    I note that this is all very traditional for MacM's final Relativity thread.

    It was in danger there for a while on not being as silly as the first.
    but by joint effort, I think we have fixed that problem.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 05:23 PM.

  3. #523
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,801
    Wait Billy, so now you're saying you don't agree? I thought you already conceded I had the better theory, yours doesn't even make sense in light of what Alphanumeric's been saying. Look at the photo of the octopus, clearly you can see it interfering with the sunlight heading for Earth. Yeah it's invisible, so what? I never said it couldn't be proven, with the right technology, that they actually do exist. Look at the caption, do you see "worth10.com" or "worth50.com"? No, you see "worth1000.com", that means it's a BLOODY GOOD PICTURE!

    What have you got for your sorry side? A blank photo? Hahahahaha LOL! I'm laughing at you right now.

    Quantum Quack is right, the points you make are utterly ridiculous. Maybe you should go into web design or something and leave physics for the real visionaries.

  4. #524
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    Your 'universal constants' whining isn't even coherent, as special relativity is entirely consistent with the constants found in physics and when combined with quantum mechanics correctly predicts how such 'constants' as the fine structure constant vary with energy. And your unwillingness to look at evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    What notes do you have? 20 years of work with nothing to show for it is all you have. You haven't read anything, you haven't worked through any thing, you haven't learnt anything. You've achieved nothing.

    You and Kent Hovind can go on a tour of Christian Science reading rooms.


    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....31#post2320131

    Are you just going to mindlessly repeat your ignorance again and again and again and again? I've seen you post that same nonsense at least 3 times now, each time you've ignored it when someone has explained to you how you epically failed to grasp what the book is actually saying. There's no 'switcharoo' or slight of hand, there's only your inability to read and understand and since you've jumped to the conclusion you want, why would you bother to put in effort to understand your mistake?

    You and QQ whine about how science is full of fibbers and cheaters and yet neither of you have a nanogram of honesty and integrity to rub between you.

    you remember this post you made don't you:

    acceleration is not relative


    well.......discuss why you have said so and Pete reckons other wise?

    and then have the gaul to pooh pooh someone else approach.......

  5. #525
    From the other thread :

    The complaint is that SRT violates the basic law of cause and effect.

    A clock can not dilate unless it has physical and not merely theoretical cause to do so....and only the accelerated clock has cause the other has none.

    Now to the double bind complaint which you seem to have trouble with.



    SRT fails to provide relative causation for the dilation of both clocks

    I wrote:


    “ now either SRT treats acceleration as it does all other aspects/properties [ relatively ] or SRT is seriously flawed....thats the result as I far as I can determine it to be at this stage... ”
    because the only way SRT can provide causation is to apply relativity to acceleration...which it can not do because to do so would breach the laws applied to accelerating objects.

    The reason why this is a double bind allegation is because SRT is Damned if it does and Damned if it doesn't. or for your simple use of language...invalid if it does include acceleration as a relative property and invalid if it doesn't.


    And the reason why this is the case stems from a flaw in the 2nd postulate and you may recall the thread about our flying pig called photon which directly confronts the issue with the 2nd postulate.

    The Irony is that SRT actually proves that a photon can not be traveling from A to B through a vacuum by default of it's double bind error.

    So I suggest you double check your reading before you embarrass yourself using Bold RED Font.
    Last edited by Quantum Quack; 07-24-09 at 05:37 PM.

  6. #526
    Now Pete provided a solution that involved relativity of magnitude of acceleration but not direction, which released SRT from the double bind complaint however is this merely theoretical causation or is it physical?

  7. #527
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Yes definitely lets join forces. We already agree on the basic principle as first stated above. I.e. "I'm right and your wrong." is the powerful argument that MacM and QQ etc use so hell, even MacM and QQ will join forces with us under that banner. Let get cracking team.

    On second thought by Edit:

    QQ posts while I was writing with photo of flying pig called photon carrying the energy. You captain did the same with photo of globe topping octipus.

    Fools both of you! Providing evidence that you are wrong.

    Here between the two line below is what the camera records when taking picture of my INVISIBLE UNICORNS:

    --------------------------



    --------------------------

    Obviously I was right! (You never see the transporters of light energy.)
    Interesting. Somehow you fail to include yourself in the view of only you are right. Secondly when you use my name and don't do it honestly I will call you out and I'm calling you ouot.

    I have said many times here "I do not proclaim to have the solutions but do have the questions".. As yet you ignore the issues rawised and want to interject But this is what SR says" or "But simultaneity or each sees, neither of which have anything to do with the issue since the issue is based on two clocks setting side by side at common rest after having had relative velocity.

    NOW FOR THE 1,000 TIME JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM THAT MERE RELATIVE VELOCITY IS A CAUSE FOR PHYSICAL CHANGE OF A RESTING CLOCK OR ADMIT THAT RELATIVE VELOCITY IS NOT THE CAUSE OF TIME DILATION AND THAT IT IS BASED ON "aCTUAL VELOCITY" GENERATED BY ACCELERATION; WHICH IS WHT IS ACTUALLY APPLIED WHEN COMPUTING PREDICTIONS THAT CAN BE CONFIRMED BY EMPERICAL DATA.

    ADMIT THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN JUSTIFY SPATIAL CONTRACTION OF A FRAME IN MOTION IS BY IGNORING THE STIPULATED PHYSICAL DILATED TICK RATE OF THE CLOCK MEASURING TRIP TIME.

  8. #528
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    QQ & Captn

    see edit in post 518, he heh ehh got you!

    PS, by edit:

    I note that this is all very traditional for MacM's final Relativity thread.

    It was in danger there for a while on not being as silly as the first.
    but by joint effort, I think we have fixed that problem.
    YES. You have resorted to the old standby tatic when you have no physics rebuttal of the facts presented.

  9. #529
    hey macky?
    How does www,photonpig,com sound to you?
    [insulting enough do you reckon, with a touch of humor and a million dollar prize pool .....hmmmmm]

  10. #530
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    hey macky?
    How does www,photonpig,com sound to you?
    [insulting enough do you reckon, with a touch of humor and a million dollar prize pool .....hmmmmm]
    As long as you give due credit to the origin.

  11. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    As long as you give due credit to the origin.
    yep old Harry Ziegler gonna get a mention for sure!

  12. #532
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    QQ you at times seem to be philosophical so it is hard to believe you want to speak imprecisely, but you do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ...The complaint is that SRT violates the basic law of cause and effect.
    A clock can not dilate unless it has physical and not merely theoretical cause to do so....and only the accelerated clock has cause the other has none. ...
    The ambiguous words only notation you and MacM both use causes a confusion that appears to make SRT results impossible. I. e. it lets you both say things like: “Both clocks cannot be ticking slower than the other” and conclude that only one is so SRT is wrong.

    You think the acceleration caused one clock’s TD (time dilation ) but MacM thinks it is the “real” rather than “illusionary” velocity that causes its TD. Both think that TD is only wrt clocks remaining in the “common rest frame.” For your convenience, below in blue text is the heart of post 423 again. It has clearly defined terms using symbols to avoid your and MacM's more vague words only discriptions.

    Recall that at time 1, t1, on my clocks, or T1 on clocks in the lady’s frame, a fuse is lit and at t2 my fire cracker explodes and at T2 her identical one does. We do not even attempt to do anything at the same time (the fuses are identical too) so all arguments about simultaneity are avoided. If the time interval (T2 - T1) is measured by clocks of my frame, that is indicated by a prime. I.e. (T2 - T1)’ and her measure of my time between fuse lighting and explosion is measured by her clocks with an asterisk is (t2-t1)*


    You will agree that either (T2 -T1)' > (t2-t1) or (T2 -T1)' < (t2-t1) as you do not deny "one way" time dilation, but refuse to believe both are true and that is correct. Exactly the same for her either: (T2 -T1) > (t2-t1)* or (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* but not both.

    SR states time is dilated in the frame moving wrt you. I.e. that (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* and also (T2 -T1)' > (t2-t1). Or in the less well defined words: “Both measure the others identical fuse as burning more slowly.” You MacM assert that this is not physically possible. So you go on to conclude that since what SR asserts is nonsense, SR must be at least partially wrong.

    But it is not impossible because (t2 -t1)* IS NOT THE SAME AS (T2-T1)' it is your lack of well defined symbols to aid clear thinking is at the heart of your belief that SRT is wrong, I think.

    Again: there is nothing impossible here because: (t2 -t1)* IS NOT THE SAME AS (T2-T1)'
    even though (t2 -t1) = (T2-T1) = 4 seconds burn time of the identical fuses.

    All agree that all cesium clocks tick at the same rate in their own reference frame. They are not altered by non-destructive acceleration. In fact they could be cesium clocks built long after the acceleration was over. Thus to fail to measure time passing locally in its frame would violate the concept that physic is the same in all inertial frames. If that were true, then a preferred absolute frame could be defined as the one in which the cesium clocks ticked faster than all others so clocks in other frames all have TD wrt it.

    I have repeated asked you which of the following is correct. (You and MacM think TD is not an effect of relative velocity as SRT states it is, so only one can be true for you.)

    Choice A: (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* i.e. she measures my clocks as with TD.
    Or
    Choice B: (t2-t1) < (T2 -T1)' i.e. I measure her clocks as with TD.

    SRT states both are true.

    You asked me which cesium clock was accelerated and I told you neither. They were only made last week and neither frame has had any acceleration for about 150 years.* Her great great grandfather accelerated away from my frame briefly to live with a lady passing by one another frame. Nothing on that frame, from which the clock was built last week, was ever accelerated. (During the big bang it just got a different starting position than Earth’s then only gas atoms and a slightly greater speed so her solar system was passing by our sun when great great grand paw saw her and took off after her.) Despite me telling you all this you still refuse to answer this simple either A or B question. MacM should feel free to try to answer also.

    -------------
    *There may have been a very tiny acceleration about 150 years ago when Great great gand paw landed his rocket ship on that other passing planet but he took great care to hit even its upper atmosphere with on a few MPH relative speed and touched down on the ground with only radial velocity wrt the planets center of mass. Hell, a cat jumping off a roof made greater acceleration than G.G. grand father did when landed to join his love at first sight woman. She was the great, great grand mother of the lady who lit firecrackers with me as an SR experiment.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 11:25 PM.

  13. #533
    Billy T, I have no doubt that your SRT exposition is correct and concise and true to what is currently held as valid.
    How ever let me ask you this simple question:
    Who or what says that what you have shown is correct?

    SRT or Reality?

    If you answer Reality says so, then you must provide a mechanism at least for this to occur.
    Relative simultaneity is a theoretical outcome and un able to be tested directly, in reality.
    If you answer that it is correct because SRT says so then you are not as good a physicist as I would have thought.
    And it certainly appears that you may be accidently at least implying that causation that is only theoretical in origins is sufficient with out at least some physical credibility.
    But it is not impossible because (t2 -t1)* IS NOT THE SAME AS (T2-T1)' it is your lack of well defined symbols to aid clear thinking is at the heart of your belief that SRT is wrong, I think.
    Why are they not the same?
    What is the causation that leads to the effects you describe?

    To simply say they are not the same is because SRT says so is th hub of the issue. It is not what SRT says that is that is in question it is whether it truely reflects reality that is.
    Can you not see the distinction?
    You have thrown simultaneity out the window ...why?
    You have accelerated one clock only and claimed causation for both? why?

    I assume that the only answer to the above is that that is what SRT tells us..And I say so what...

    If i have read your post correctly and please correct me if I am wrong. I am sitting in cafe tryng to type on a micro keyboard and makes sense in all the noise here.

  14. #534
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    The ambiguous words only notation you and MacM both use causes a confusion that appears to make SRT results impossible.
    No. It lets us talk freely without having our hands (tongues) tied by mathematical formalities designed to limit challenges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I. e. it lets you both say things like: “both clocks cannot be ticking slower than the other” and conclude that only one is so SRT is wrong.
    SRT is wrong because it was based on mere relative velocity and in fact doesn't use it but considers who has actual velocity due to frame switching acceleration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    MacM thinks it is the “real” rather than “illusionary” velocity that causes its TD.
    And so does current physics since they consider "Frame Switching" (who has actual motion due to having accelerated). Are you saying you disagree?

    Yes/No?

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Both think that TD is only wrt clocks remaining in the “common rest frame.”
    You are assuming to much. Putting clocks in a common rest frame subsequent to having had relative veloicty is to eliminate all your BS about simultaneity and what each observers "Sees" while in motion.

    I have not claimed observers in motion do not "See" each other dilated. I just point out that that is not a true representation of the physical condition of the clock(s).

    It is no more valid than a claim that the univerrse is bright red just because you put on red glasses or that the paralax of rain coming down at a 45 degree angle when you are driving into it at the speed it is falling straight down.

    These are things observers might"See" but dare you to claim they are physically real descriptions of the universe and or direction of the rain falling because I can drop a plumb line from a tower and prove that the rain is falling straight down and what you see is an "Illusion of Motion".

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    For your convenience, below in blue text is the heart of post 423 again. It has clearly defined terms using symbols to avoid your and MacM's more vague words only discriptions.
    We (I) don't need your legthy overly complex statements. What we need is you to respond directly to the points raised asnd not try to divert the discussion by posting endless new scenarios that haven't addressed our posts.


    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    SR states time is dilated in the frame moving wrt you. I.e. that (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* and also (T2 -T1)' > (t2-t1). Or in the less well defined words: “Both measure the others identical fuse as burning more slowly.” You MacM assert that this is not physically possible. So you go on to conclude that since what SR asserts is nonsense, SR must be at least partially wrong.
    Yes and see above. You are ignoring the term "physically" and want to interject what observers "See". That is perception distorted by motion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    But it is not impossible because (t2 -t1)* IS NOT THE SAME AS (T2-T1)' it is your lack of well defined symbols to aid clear thinking is at the heart of your belief that SRT is wrong, I think.
    I take exception you do not think. See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    All agree that all cesium clocks tick at the same rate in their own reference frame. They are not altered by non-destructive acceleration. In fact they could be cesium clocks built long after the acceleration was over. Thus to fail to measure time passing locally in its frame would violate the concept that physic is the same in all inertial frames.
    No they don't. That is the farce. If the clock is dilated it is NOT ticking the same. It only appears the same in the dilated frame because you cannot detect the shift. It is based on that falicy that produces the mathematical conclusion that there is spatial contraction in the moving frame.

    It should be obvious to 1st graders that if clocks dilated physically they are dilated in all frames. That given a slower tick rate the observer calculates his reduced trip time as being a higher velocity.

    That is the proper physical view, not that relative velocity is a cause for physical change in a resting clock or that relative velocity causes one physical condition such as TD in one frame but in the other frame it ticks in synch (that is ludricrus on the surface) and then that in the dmoving frame the physical response is that distance contracted.

    WHAT A LOT OF VODOO BS. THIS IS NOT PHYSICS. PERIOD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    If that were true, then a preferred absolute frame could be defined at least as the one in which the cesium clocks ticked faster than all others so frames clocks in other frames have TD wrt it.
    Likely true but not necessarily so. It actually appears the process is more complex.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I have repeated asked you which of the following is correct. (You and MacM think TD is not an effect of relative velocity as SRT states it is)

    Choice A: (T2 -T1) < (t2-t1)* i.e. she measures my clocks as with TD.
    Or
    Choice B: (t2-t1) < (T2 -T1)' i.e. I measure her clocks as with TD.

    SRT state both are true.
    This description of SR is only for while the clocks are in relative motion. How many times do I have to repeat that this is not at issue.

    The issue is that once the clocks are restored to a common rest frame for comparison only one is dilated and it is always the most accelerated. The observed reciprocity is not a permanent feature but only an "Illusion of Motion" which vanishes once the motion has stopped.

  15. #535
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,694
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    Billy T, I have no doubt that your SRT exposition is correct and concise and true...
    I will get back to your tomorrow as bed time for me now, but I was not trying to "expose" some truth of SR - only to pose a question to you and MacM.

    I did once or twice briefly note that SRT said both A & B of my question were true, but that was just to contrast SR with your and MacM's POV. Not an effort to explain or support SR. I mainly want all to be unambiguous in what they are asserting and that is nearly impossible in words only.

    Until tomorrow.

  16. #536
    as pointed out earlier it appears that it is the lack applying relativity to the accelleration that is the key.

    You may suggest that in your gedanken acceleration history is irrelevant but this is only from a theoretical point of view.
    can you not see this to be the case?

    I could just as easilly add the theoretical outcome that not only can both clocks appear to be dilated but also physically upside down as well and would be equally correct as the reason for the inversion is not relevant...
    Last edited by Quantum Quack; 07-25-09 at 02:40 AM.

  17. #537
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I will get back to your tomorrow as bed time for me now, but I was not trying to "expose" some truth of SR - only to pose a question to you and MacM.

    I did once or twice briefly note that SRT said both A & B of my question were true, but that was just to contrast SR with your and MacM's POV. Not an effort to explain or support SR. I mainly want all to be unambiguous in what they are asserting and that is nearly impossible in words only.

    Until tomorrow.
    Your statement is FALSE because there is no "contrast". You are interjecting "Illusions of Motion" when the issue deals with clocks at common rest.

  18. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM
    It should be obvious to 1st graders that if clocks dilated physically they are dilated in all frames
    How many 1st graders have helped you develop your ideas?

  19. #539
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    well.......discuss why you have said so and Pete reckons other wise?

    and then have the gaul to pooh pooh someone else approach.......
    You've already shown you'll misinterpret what that phrase means so don't try to palm your lack of understanding off onto someone else, the fact remains you're failing to grasp how relativity works and you're whining about it.

    Relativity allows you to discuss/mode/analyse the relative acceleration between two objects. However, acceleration is not relative like velocity, in that going into a different inertial frame doesn't change the value of acceleration, like it does velocity. Velocity is inertial frame dependent. Acceleration is not.

    Savvy? Irrespective of what Paul says do you understand? You keep dodging the issue of what you grasp, despite this entire thread being you and your ignorant lackeys fault.

  20. #540
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    How many 1st graders have helped you develop your ideas?
    He He. You'll have to give me some time to come up with a suitable rebuttal. -

Similar Threads

  1. By Gustav in forum SF Open Government
    Last Post: 04-24-08, 01:27 AM
    Replies: 7
  2. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16
  3. By Vern in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 05-05-07, 12:24 AM
    Replies: 43
  4. By MacM in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 02-28-06, 03:20 AM
    Replies: 345

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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