Thread: Mac's Final Relativity Thread

  1. #541
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    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.
    Considering I haven't seen you post any factual physics rebuttal but merely propagating untested theory regarding reciprocity and "What SR says" as proof, I'll ignore your basless insults.

    Ignorance is not understanding that without a physical cause there is no physical affect or change.

    Ignorance is refusing to acknlowedge that in one frame you stipulate a moving clock is time dilated but then when in that frame disregard it's dilated tick rate and conclude that since it accumulated less time on a trip it must have gone less distance.

    Ignorance is posting slander against posters raising legitimate issues and pretending to be superior but posting irrelevant garbage about what the theory being challenged says and not addressing the actual physics issues.

    Ignorance is not understanding that when you introduce "Frame Switching" you have introduced acceleration or who has "Actual Velocity" and are no longer working with mere relative velocity and you have abandoned Einstein's ludricrus relative velocity reciprocity for a form of Lorentz absolute velocity.

    Ignorance is believing in a physics concept that has you get closer to something the more you accelerate away from it.

    Ignorance is believing that if a particle is accelerated to 0.99999c in 10ms that the 14BLyr edge of the observable universe contracts to a mere 62.6MLyr or a change of 1.4E10 Lyr a change rate of 1.4E12 Lyr/sec or 44,000,000,000,000,000,000c!

    Ignorance is to suggest that particle entanglement doesn't defy the v=c limit just becuse you assert no information was transferred. Who are you to dictate to nature what it is doing without our knowledge?

    If a remote particle sees it's mate change and changes instantly then it received information - period. Your efforts to protect SR aside by fabricating rules that nature must followdue to your ignorance of nature is pathetic.

    Ignorance is claiming expansion or contraction of space has no relavistic affects so as to protect SRT while at the same time have SRT cause expansion and contraction of space.

    i.e. - Selectively choose when physics applies or don't apply, physics that work one direction but not the other..

    Etc, etc., ect, etc.

    Last edited by MacM; 07-25-09 at 03:14 PM.

  2. #542
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    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?...
    No because not only is that an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to consideration, you have not offered even one shred of weak evidence - only are stating your POV.

    It is very hard to even understand how you could think that an acceleration that ceased to exist many years before a cesium clock was even built could change the mechanism of that clock when it is later built in an inertial frame.

    Even Mac is not suggesting this nonsense! He build his nonsense on the unfounded postulate that velocity exists in two flavors, which no one has ever been able to distinguish by measuring anything!:

    (1) The "illusionary velocity" is what everyone else calls "relative velocity" and if they are careful, they tell what it is relative to. – E.g. "The car was going 60mph when it hit the hole." vs. the more careful: "The car was going 60mph wrt the hole in the road it hit." The first is a little bit ambiguous as it could have been wrt the approaching car that made it swerve into the hole. (60mph head-on collision would have been worse.)

    This is like MacM's ambiguities with wrt which clock, which I removed by putting a prime or asterisk on the time intervals to explicitly state whose clocks were measuring them. EG I use: (t2-t1)' vs. (t2-t1)* but MacM would just say: The time interval between lighting the fuse and the explosion. His refusal to be precise is I think due to his belief that all cesium clocks (even if once earlier, before they were built, the cesium was accelerated keep the same physical time.), but it is hard to be sure what MacM is stating as that seems to change in a few weeks and contained various ambiguities in the statements.

    Here you, QQ, seem to think that the cesium later used to build the clock somehow "remembers" that it was accelerated years earlier. If that is your POV, you deny that physics is the same in all inertial frames. (The accelerated cesium must have different energy levels so the radiation used by the clock is of a different frequency than that emitted by "never accelerated" cesium.) SRT has none of these problems as it ALWAYS uses the relative current velocity and prior history, accelerated or not, is unimportant as it is time itself which is passing different in different frames – nothing to do with changing the energy levels of cesium, etc. That is why I always try to be precise and indicate whose time I speak of by the super-fixed prime or asterisk. See post 532 for most recent example, which is more compact than earlier posts.

    (2) The “MacM special” velocity does require knowledge of the prior history. Time dilation is only known when some prior frame exists in which the two clocks were once at rest. The “MacM special” velocity is the “non-illusionary” or “actual real” velocity which the acceleration from that frame has made. {Inview of MacM's post 543 ending, I answer by making this red insert and following, original text only bold} Prior to post 118 if both clocks had different accelerations, one had to calculate each separately and take the difference to find the time dilation of the faster wrt the slower by the MacM approved in post 93 methodology but as that lead to self-contradictions shown in post 118, MacM’s POV now, (I believe) is that neither he nor SR can tell how much the faster clock is dilated wrt the slower one when both differentially accelerated away from their prior common rest frame. Here from post 527 he states: “I have said many times here "I do not proclaim to have the solutions but do have the questions"…” Considering the certainty of how to compute Time Dilation MacM approved in post 93, this is a step forward, IMHO.

    QQ, I will answer your post 533 questions separately in a separate post.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-25-09 at 05:42 PM.

  3. #543
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    MacM[/b] would just say: The time interval between lighting the fuse and the explosion. His refusal to be precise is I think due to his belief that all ceasium clocks (even if once earlier, before they were built, the ceasium was accelerated keep the same physical time.),
    Sorry but this is BullS___.

    Mac hasn't commented on your ceasium clock scenario because it is irrelevant to the issue I raised and is not an answer or even a direct rebuttal of my question. I refuse to be drawn into discussions regarding issues not in question.

    Answer my question and stop creating your own when yours aren't in response to the issue at hand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    but it is hard to be sure what MacM is stating as that seems to change in a few weeks and contaned various ambiguities in the statement.
    I've been here longer than you (several years in any case) I suspect and have not changed my view once. You can keep making up Sh_t but that doesn't make it true.

  4. #544
    Billy T,
    Even Mac is not suggesting this nonsense!
    and neither am I...

  5. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    No because not only is that an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence to consideration, you have not offered even one shred of weak evidence - only are stating your POV.

    It is very hard to even understand how you could think that an acceleration that ceased to exist many years before a cesium clock was even built could change the mechanism of that clock when it is later built in an inertial frame.

    Even Mac is not suggesting this nonsense! He build his nonsense on the unfounded postulate that velocity exists in two flavors, which no one has ever been able to distinguish by measuring anything!:

    (1) The "illusionary velocity" is what everyone else calls "relative velocity" and if they are careful, they tell what it is relative to. – E.g. "The car was going 60mph when it hit the hole." vs. the more careful: "The car was going 60mph wrt the hole in the road it hit." The first is a little bit ambiguous as it could have been wrt the approaching car that made it swerve into the hole. (60mph head-on collision would have been worse.)

    This is like MacM's ambiguities with wrt which clock, which I removed by putting a prime or asterisk on the time intervals to explicitly state whose clocks were measuring them. EG I use: (t2-t1)' vs. (t2-t1)* but MacM would just say: The time interval between lighting the fuse and the explosion. His refusal to be precise is I think due to his belief that all cesium clocks (even if once earlier, before they were built, the cesium was accelerated keep the same physical time.), but it is hard to be sure what MacM is stating as that seems to change in a few weeks and contained various ambiguities in the statements.

    Here you, QQ, seem to think that the cesium later used to build the clock somehow "remembers" that it was accelerated years earlier. If that is your POV, you deny that physics is the same in all inertial frames. (The accelerated cesium must have different energy levels so the radiation used by the clock is of a different frequency than that emitted by "never accelerated" cesium.) SRT has none of these problems as it ALWAYS uses the relative current velocity and prior history, accelerated or not, is unimportant as it is time itself which is passing different in different frames – nothing to do with changing the energy levels of cesium, etc. That is why I always try to be precise and indicate whose time I speak of by the super-fixed prime or asterisk. See post 532 for most recent example, which is more compact than earlier posts.

    (2) The “MacM special” velocity does require knowledge of the prior history. Time dilation is only known when some prior frame exists in which the two clocks were once at rest. The “MacM special” velocity is the “non-illusionary” or “actual real” velocity which the acceleration from that frame has made. {Inview of MacM's post 543 ending, I answer by making this red insert and following, original text only bold} Prior to post 118 if both clocks had different accelerations, one had to calculate each separately and take the difference to find the time dilation of the faster wrt the slower by the MacM approved in post 93 methodology but as that lead to self-contradictions shown in post 118, MacM’s POV now, (I believe) is that neither he nor SR can tell how much the faster clock is dilated wrt the slower one when both differentially accelerated away from their prior common rest frame. Here from post 527 he states: “I have said many times here "I do not proclaim to have the solutions but do have the questions"…” Considering the certainty of how to compute Time Dilation MacM approved in post 93, this is a step forward, IMHO.

    QQ, I will answer your post 533 questions separately in a separate post.
    way to over complicated. sheesh!

    The problem is actually quite simple to describe and doesn't need to be complicated by all sorts of various scenarios...And I might add it only takes one simple gedanken to show the poblem, and if that gedanken proves SRT has a problem throwing other gedankens at it aint going to fix it.

    IMO the simple
    two blocks of grantit sitting o my desk, one block of granite is accelerated to relativistic velocity the other one has endured NO acceleration....simple gendanken....ok

    It doesn't need to be complicated any further with big bang history or other such extensions.

    We have two blocks [ with clocks attached] sharing a spot on my table [ relative v=0 ]
    question:
    1] Qu: Are the clocks on those blocks ticking in synch? yes.
    2] One block accelerates to a relativistic velocity and has ungone significant energistic changes.
    3] Qu: How can the block sitting on my desk be granted Time dilation by the accelerated block when there is no physical cause for that block to change it's tick rates?
    4] If there is no physical causation for the block on my table to change it's tick rates and still it appears to do so by the acellerertaed block then it can only be one of two things :
    a] an illusion of motion result.
    b] a purely theoretical outcome.


    not hard to understand really...and if we use the KISS [Keep it simple stupid]method we might even see a result to the complaint.

  6. #546
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ... If you answer Reality says so, then you must provide a mechanism at least for this to occur.
    I answer that SRT is reality, in that its predictions have never be falsified and many have been confirmed. One of the most persuasive to me is that muon have such as short half life, HL*, that they can only go about 100 meters if traversing that distance at non-relativistic speed. However cosmic ray muons have a very relativistic speeds so most can travel down from 100,000 feet to the ground because enjoy Time Dilation, TD’ (Their clock is running slowly wrt to ours.) Again the asterisk indicates the time in the moving objects own frame (muon in this case) and the prime indicates my time. Thus for slow muons produced in the lab, HL’ which I measure is approximately the same as HL* but for the very fast cosmic ray muon HL* <<< HL’ that is to say both lab and cosmic muon have the same HL* as they do not have any speed wrt themselves, but by my clocks, HL’, of a cosmic ray muon is enormously greater that the slow ones I measure in the lab.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ...Relative simultaneity is a theoretical outcome and unable to be tested directly, in reality.
    I skip comment on this as there is no attempt to make any events simultaneous in the question you keep refusing to answer. That is the lady lights her “guaranteed precisely 4 sec” fuse whenever the urge strikes her. I lite my IDENTICALLY FUSED firecracker on the 4 of July when it gets dark. We are both ever rich so have hired observers and within frame synchronized clocks ( NOT mine to hers) thru out our respective frames. It may be a week or two before my observer that was her her at the time of lighting her fuse T1* in her frame but T1’ in mine is reported back to me. Likewise another of my observers (very slightly injured) recorded T2’ and reported it back to me.

    Although (T2*-T1*) = (T2-T1)* = 4 sec the lady told me, I find (T2-T1)’ much greater than 4 seconds. (Recall her event use captial letter, mine lower case.)
    She told me (but could be lying if SR is false) that (t2 –t1)* was also much greater than the guaranteed 4 sec. Or to relax to the somewhat ambiguous words only you and MacM use Both she and I claim the others identical fuse burned too long. (Sort of like the cosmic muons lived too long. ) SRT supports both us as telling the truth, but you and MacM, for different reasons, believe one of us must be lying as it is impossible (you assert without evidence except your “common sense”) for both to measure the others fuse as burning slower than our own as they are identical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ... If you answer that it is correct because SRT says so then you are not as good a physicist as I would have thought.
    I admit to accepting many things, based on both theory which has NEVER been violated and has been confirmed in many of its predictions as a good physicist should EVEN if it violates all common sense. For example I believe that a single photon does actually go thru two widely separated arms of an interferometer. I believe very well prepared, but not yet measured, pairs of photons can become separated by more than 10 Km (as was done in Southern Germany Alps at least a decade ago) and finding (measuring) one vertical polarized at the same time (timing error less than time it take light to travel the 10Km) is always found to be horizontally polarized as they are a “linked” pair in a common mixed quantum state the has no net polarization. (Einstein, Rosen & Polinski did not like Quantum Mechanc as a statement about reality – it was only a fantastically accurate means of predicting the probably of results but each was deterministic so proposted this ERP experiment to show up QM for the fraud it was based on their common sense. It did not go the way Einstein expected, but I think he was dead by time it was done. Bell with some really simple but thoughtful math developed and inequality that can be tested, which made Einstein’s “hidden variables” possible only if ever worse violations of common sense were true.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ... 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.
    Why are they not the same?
    What is the causation that leads to the effects you describe?
    No, they ARE the SAME, assuming your “they” refers to the two clocks in different frames, so there is no “effect” on them to “cause”. An effect would be implied ONLY if there were some physical change in the clock which was accelerated; but unlike you who thinks (if I understand your POV) that there is a physical change induced by the acceleration, I think the other frame clock is NOT changed, just like I think the muons of cosmic rays are identical to the lab muons.

    Again: I am not implying any physical change – no “effect” so do not have “effect” on anything. I do not think time is a thing that can be effected either, but that does not mean time is some “invisible river” that “flows” uniform speed for all frames. Time is just an natural human creation to couple the observable rates of two or more processes in your frame.

    For example, the rate that the car is traveling to the rate that the wheels are rotating. But if I measure (compare to rate my clocks is ticking) the rate of some process in a different frame I do not get the same rate as some one in that frame measures the rate with his clocks. For another example If you were traveling with the cosmic ray muon, you would find they have the rapid rate of decay than my measure of their HL’ in the lab shows Only when a “cross frame” measurement is made are the results different form an “in frame” measurement. Nothing physical about the muons (or the clocks) has change –All “in frame” measurements give the same rate – that fact follows from physics being the same in all inertial frames. Muon, cesium clocks, fuse burn times, everything is the same in all inertial frame as physics (and chemistry) are the same. You want a “cause” for the effect is very much like your wanting to Yes or no to question: “Are you still beating your wife.” In that it asks about something that does not, did not happen. Was your first unassisted flight (only arms waving) difficult? Yes or No.


    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ...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?
    I am an agnostic. I do not accept anything as true without evidence. All the evidence available supports SR and none contradicts (You have only your “common sense, notr evidence telling you SR is wrong I think. If that is wrong what is your evidence SRT is worng?)
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ...You have thrown simultaneity out the window ...why?
    Mainly because (1) there are always long discussion and argument about it because common sense (falsely) says that if A&B happen at the same time for me they happen at the same time for everyone, and (2) My use of two identical “4sec fuses” removed all need to try to make anything in one frame happen when something else happened in another frame.
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ...You have accelerated one clock only and claimed causation for both? why?
    No NEITHER clock was accelleratate. They were only made last week and both frames have been inertial frame for 150 years. I even once told that during the Big Bang the matter of one formed at a different location than the gas that became our solar system and had a different velocity. I.e. they were “born” with different velocities, just as light is born form hot matter with the speed of lght and never was slower needing to be accelerated up to the speed of light. But usually just asy the acceleration ceased 150years ago and rely on the fact that there is no difference in the energy level of the cesium atoms used to make the atomic clocks last week in the two inertial frames. – Do you really think the energy levels were permanently changed by the acceleration of 150 years ago?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    ...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.
    No, I do not take anything as true without evidence. So I again ask you why you think the supporting SR evidence is wrong?

    I am not opposed to being a “crackpot” with 100s of supporting accepted facts. - In fact I am proud to be one when it comes to how human perception works. – I did not become one lightly as usually the collective judgment of the scientific community is right. I spent a full year, with nothing else to do, in the Cognitive Science Dept of Johns Hopkins. (I got a full pay sabbatical from the Applied Physic Lab of JHU after working there about 27 years and retire after about 30.) The last two years, after that year sabbatical year, I did little but think and read more on how the brain function.

    After I retired I spent five more years in deep study before firmly concluding that perception is provided by what I call the Real Time Simulation running in parietal lobs, that it does not “emerge” from many stages of neural transformation of sensory impulses – they only keep the simulation (when not dreaming) a usually quite accurate model of the sensed external world.

    Probably no one else active here is both as staunch defender of conventional physic POV and also a crackpot in another science field slowing winning converts to his POV. Note that before I started to try to overturn the establishment, – I spent years becoming an expert in the conventional POV. In contrast, AFAIK, you are very ignorant of SRT, never read anything but a popular press account etc. and are armed only with your common sense, yet are trying to do the same.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-25-09 at 09:32 PM.

  7. #547
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    way to over complicated. sheesh!...
    3] Qu: How can the block sitting on my desk be granted Time dilation by the accelerated block when there is no physical cause for that block to change it's tick rates?...
    KISS [Keep it simple stupid]method we might even see a result to the complaint.
    You forgot what came after KISS i.e. But Not To Simple.
    Most people do forget as KISS is "catchy" but BNTS is not.

    ON [3] PLEASE READ MY NECESSARLY LONG POST that is answered there. I.e. there is no physical effect to cause!

    I am about to give up on you as NEVER DO YOU ANSWER a simple A or B question. NEVER do you offer ANY evidence. Only your opinions.

    Some things dumbed down to be KISS become wrong (violate BNTS) like your opinions and the popularized articles on SR.

  8. #548
    You are right on BillyT it takes evidence and only evidence to end this debate... and that is where the effort needs to go not words or rhetoric.
    So on that Note I shall leave you and Macm to it...and continue to work towards providing conclusive evidence.
    Thank you for your time and effort.

    "essentially I have an indefensible position because regardless of logic or common sense it will always come down to evidence that contradicts SRT in an indesputable fashion"



    I shall re-read your lengthy post and if appropriate respond directly to it. However at this stage I fail to see how responding will improve the situation but maybe later I will....thanks again...

  9. #549
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    You are right on BillyT it takes evidence and only evidence to end this debate... and that is where the effort needs to go not words or rhetoric.
    So on that Note I shall leave you and Macm to it...and continue to work towards providing conclusive evidence.
    Thank you for your time and effort.

    "essentially I have an indefensible position because regardless of logic or common sense it will always come down to evidence that contradicts SRT in an indesputable fashion"



    I shall re-read your lengthy post and if appropriate respond directly to it. However at this stage I fail to see how responding will improve the situation but maybe later I will....thanks again...
    Don't give up so easy QQ. They still haven't acknowledged that in the actual application of SR they reject relative veloicty as a cause also. They rely on frame switching (which is accelerated frame in disguise or who has actual motion).

    Also they have no evidence to support their claim for reciprocity being real and we don't reject reciprocity as an illusion of motion. So on that score we are at worst even but with logic definitely on our side..

  10. #550
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    Don't give up so easy QQ. They still haven't acknowledged that in the actual application of SR they reject relative veloicty as a cause also. They rely on frame switching (which is accelerated frame in disguise or who has actual motion).

    Also they have no evidence to support their claim for reciprocity being real and we don't reject reciprocity as an illusion of motion. So on that score we are at worst even but with logic definitely on our side..
    of course there is a difference between a lack of evidence to support a claim and finding evidence that destroys it....

    evidence such as quantum entanglement immediatly comes to mind as a way of disturbing the idea of relative simultaneity and that light travels from A to B across a vacuum of vacant space.

  11. #551
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    She told me (but could be lying if SR is false) that (t2 –t1)* was also much greater than the guaranteed 4 sec. Or to relax to the somewhat ambiguous words only you and MacM use Both she and I claim the others identical fuse burned too long. (Sort of like the cosmic muons lived too long. ) SRT supports both us as telling the truth, but you and MacM, for different reasons, believe one of us must be lying as it is impossible (you assert without evidence except your “common sense”) for both to measure the others fuse as burning slower than our own as they are identical.
    Billy,

    It really is inappropriate to continue to use my name in your posts with respect to your lengthy diatribe for which I have not and will not participate.

    Your cases all seem to involve relative motion or distance which is outside the issue raised.

    As QQ has correctly pointed out one simple gendankin or test showing failure of SR falisifies it and 1,000,000 gendankins or tests supporting it eo not salvage it - it is still falsified.

    So why not just answer the simple questions.

  12. #552
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    This is like MacM's ambiguities with wrt which clock, which I removed by putting a prime or asterisk on the time intervals to explicitly state whose clocks were measuring them. EG I use: (t2-t1)' vs. (t2-t1)* but MacM would just say: The time interval between lighting the fuse and the explosion. His refusal to be precise is I think due to his belief that all cesium clocks (even if once earlier, before they were built, the cesium was accelerated keep the same physical time.), but it is hard to be sure what MacM is stating as that seems to change in a few weeks and contained various ambiguities in the statements.
    You should stop trying to sitipulate what I think. I've told you what I think and I don't need you distorting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Prior to post 118 if both clocks had different accelerations, one had to calculate each separately and take the difference to find the time dilation of the faster wrt the slower by the MacM approved in post 93 methodology but as that lead to self-contradictions shown in post 118, MacM’s POV now,
    I do not concur with your assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Here from post 527 he states: “I have said many times here "I do not proclaim to have the solutions but do have the questions"…” Considering the certainty of how to compute Time Dilation MacM approved in post 93, this is a step forward, IMHO.
    Keeping this honest I must note for otherts I have made the above statment numerous times. NONE of which were as the result of anything you posted with respect to some proof. I have not and will not endure the useless time consuming and irrelevant scenarios you have posted.

    As has been stated one simple test or gendankin that falsifies SR malisfies it and no test or gendankin supporting SR changes the fact it is falsified.

    If you cannot properly rebutt these simple scenarios then there is simply no justification to post and respond to unending more complex scenarios.

  13. #553
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    Considering I haven't seen you post any factual physics rebuttal but merely propagating untested theory regarding reciprocity and "What SR says" as proof, I'll ignore your basless insults.
    QQ has admitted that despite claiming to have spent 20 years examining this area of physics he's never actually read a book on relativity, never done a calculation and never read a paper. So what has he actually done in those 20 years? He's deliberately kept himself ignorant of relativity. So my accusation of ignorance is valid with him. Geist claims to know calculus but can't understand Newton's Shell Theorem, a 1st year homework exercise, nor has he ever done a single calculation in special relativity and he doesn't even understand the wordy textbook he's got on special relativity. So my accusations are valid for him.

    As for you, I haven't read much of this thread but your comments like "Ignorance is believing in a physics concept that has you get closer to something the more you accelerate away from it." shows you're not above either deliberately constructing strawmen or simply making claims based on incomplete information about mainstream physics. So I'd say I'm pretty close to the mark with you too.

    The remainder of your post validates that, you raise 'issues' with are either artefacts of your inability to understand mainstream physics or simply pathetic strawmen. Well done, thanks for proving my point for me.

  14. #554
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    QQ has admitted that despite claiming to have spent 20 years examining this area of physics he's never actually read a book on relativity, never done a calculation and never read a paper. So what has he actually done in those 20 years? He's deliberately kept himself ignorant of relativity. So my accusation of ignorance is valid with him. Geist claims to know calculus but can't understand Newton's Shell Theorem, a 1st year homework exercise, nor has he ever done a single calculation in special relativity and he doesn't even understand the wordy textbook he's got on special relativity. So my accusations are valid for him.

    As for you, I haven't read much of this thread but your comments like "Ignorance is believing in a physics concept that has you get closer to something the more you accelerate away from it." shows you're not above either deliberately constructing strawmen or simply making claims based on incomplete information about mainstream physics. So I'd say I'm pretty close to the mark with you too.

    The remainder of your post validates that, you raise 'issues' with are either artefacts of your inability to understand mainstream physics or simply pathetic strawmen. Well done, thanks for proving my point for me.
    First let me say I appreciate the tone of your response and I will therefore try to respond in kind.

    As to my background I am not an expert in relativity. I have however done considerable reading and have an extensive formal technical background. I have had mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics design, hold several energy patents, owned and operated an R&D Corp and have done NASA contracts.

    In nuclear we did study a bit of relativity. I have had higher math but that was 45 years ago and I had little actual use for it in that when I owned my own R&D Corp I had an engineering staff doing the number cruching. So while I routinely refuse to get baited into doing mathematical scenarios which leads to "You can't even do grade school math" type comments, the fact is I can read papers having calculus, etc and understand what is being done.

    So when you see James R ranting and raving about my lack of understanding or ignorance etc., frankly it is basless. It is his way of trying to divert attention from the issues raised.

    Now to your one objection point about "Ignorance is believing in a physics concept that has you get closer to something the more you accelerate away from it." ; well if you aren't aware of it it is true (if you accept SR as formalized).

    This is not something I have concocted although I realized it independantly just from the mathematical basis of relativity. I have had three formal debates with a high energy particle physicist and when I raised this issue he concurred that it in fact happens.

    Our difference was that he accepted it and I don't since I reject spatial contraction according to SR.

    Let me clarify.

    Given you are 1.666 Lyr from earth according to earthlings while already receeding at 0.8c, you would then be only 1 Lyr from earth according to yourself.

    You then accelerate away to 0.85c or 0.05c increase in velocity, in a short enough period to not have distance traveled during acceleration over-ride the affect such that it can be ignored, you are now only 0.877966n Lyr away from earth. OR you are now 0.122 Lyr closer than you were before you accelerated away.

    Now I skip the distance traveled during acceleration because:

    1 - hypothetically you could be a particle and the acceleration period can be in milli-seconds.

    2 - I can use a higher initial velocity and require less increase to produce the affect because relavistic affects are non-linear.

    3 - With the above math you could take 44.5 days to accelerate and not have moved at all! If you take longer you will slowly move away, less time and you get closer.

    Now as to my other comments if you have one you think you can rebutt have at it but just to blow them off is not a rebuttal. I can assure you I can make them stick. So unfortunately it is you that are on the outside looking in.

    Our difference is I have considered the full consequences of SR you haven't.

    Hope this clarifies your concerns.
    Last edited by MacM; 07-26-09 at 11:20 AM.

  15. #555
    Registered Senior Member Prosoothus's Avatar
    Posts
    1,973
    MacM,

    f a remote particle sees it's mate change and changes instantly then it received information - period. Your efforts to protect SR aside by fabricating rules that nature must followdue to your ignorance of nature is pathetic.

    Ignorance is claiming expansion or contraction of space has no relavistic affects so as to protect SRT while at the same time have SRT cause expansion and contraction of space.

    i.e. - Selectively choose when physics applies or don't apply, physics that work one direction but not the other..

    Etc, etc., ect, etc.
    It's nice to see that you're still around protesting the theory of relativity.

    I completely agree with your statement above. The more I study physics, the more it appears to me that physicists today are trying to make the universe fit their theories instead of the other way around. Maybe that's why physics is so messed up today.

    I look at reaching the "theory of everything" like trying to build a tall skyscraper. The answers to everything are on the 100th floor, but you can never get there because the foundation of skyscraper is faulty. And the builders will never fix the foundation because it was made by famous scientists like Einstein.

    I sometimes think that we should forget all the theories in physics, and all the great physicists, and rebuild physics, from the ground up, with all the data that we have today. No more making excuses and exceptions for why the universe doesn't behave like a theory says it should.

  16. #556
    Quote Originally Posted by Prosoothus View Post
    MacM,



    It's nice to see that you're still around protesting the theory of relativity.

    I completely agree with your statement above. The more I study physics, the more it appears to me that physicists today are trying to make the universe fit their theories instead of the other way around. Maybe that's why physics is so messed up today.

    I look at reaching the "theory of everything" like trying to build a tall skyscraper. The answers to everything are on the 100th floor, but you can never get there because the foundation of skyscraper is faulty. And the builders will never fix the foundation because it was made by famous scientists like Einstein.

    I sometimes think that we should forget all the theories in physics, and all the great physicists, and rebuild physics, from the ground up, with all the data that we have today. No more making excuses and exceptions for why the universe doesn't behave like a theory says it should.
    well finally a ray of sunlight comes into the thread.

    well said and I agree entirely....

    Dump the pre-conceptions and deal with a blank slate. [ called open mindedness]

  17. #557
    QQ has admitted that despite claiming to have spent 20 years examining this area of physics he's never actually read a book on relativity, never done a calculation and never read a paper.
    you are going to have to quote a post that says that Alphanumeric, as I do not recall ever saying what you accuse me of saying....I just read what I need to read...and study what I need to study s I haven't got the time nor the resources to attend a 5-10 year formal study program.

  18. #558
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Prosoothus View Post
    MacM,



    It's nice to see that you're still around protesting the theory of relativity.

    I completely agree with your statement above. The more I study physics, the more it appears to me that physicists today are trying to make the universe fit their theories instead of the other way around. Maybe that's why physics is so messed up today.

    I look at reaching the "theory of everything" like trying to build a tall skyscraper. The answers to everything are on the 100th floor, but you can never get there because the foundation of skyscraper is faulty. And the builders will never fix the foundation because it was made by famous scientists like Einstein.

    I sometimes think that we should forget all the theories in physics, and all the great physicists, and rebuild physics, from the ground up, with all the data that we have today. No more making excuses and exceptions for why the universe doesn't behave like a theory says it should.
    Thank you Pro....., unfortunately there is very little appreciation here for facing raw facts. They prefer "But SR says" type responses.

  19. #559
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,849
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...Given you are 1.666 Lyr from earth according to earthlings while already receeding at 0.8c, you would then be only 1 Lyr from earth according to yourself.

    You then accelerate away to 0.85c or 0.05c increase in velocity, in a short enough period to not have distance traveled during acceleration over-ride the affect such that it can be ignored, you are now only 0.877966n Lyr away from earth. OR you are now 0.122 Lyr closer than you were before you accelerated away.

    Now I skip the distance traveled during acceleration because:

    1 - hypothetically you could be a particle and the acceleration period can be in milli-seconds.

    2 - I can use a higher initial velocity and require less increase to produce the affect because relavistic affects are non-linear.

    3 - With the above math you could take 44.5 days to accelerate and not have moved at all! If you take longer you will slowly move away, less time and you get closer. ...
    I bet that is an original paradox invented by MacM. I have always said two things about you:
    (1) you are clever and inventive.
    (2) you are imprecise and ambiguous with words.

    You often fail to tell whose clocks are used to measure time intervals. I used T* or T’ to be precise, but you and QQ object to the excessive length and complexity of my posts. There is more than the one word made red above, which is ill defined and ambiguous, but as you don’t like my long posts, I only discuss that red word:

    Here you fail to tell by whose meter sticks the “closer” is measured.

    The moving rocket with near infinite thrust did change it speed wrt me from 0.8c to 0.85c in negligible time, so it did essentially jump back towards me 0.122Lyr BY MY METER STICKS while his rocket blast gave him more momentum away from me.

    If you omit the essential (to not be ambiguous) blue text, as you did, this is a great paradox: Coming closer by blasting away!

    The rocket ship guy comes from a long line of sea going men and continues the family tradition:

    He trails a knotted rope behind his ship and it just so happens, by strange chance, that two things were true at the instant he let off his near infinite force rocket blast:
    (1) The end of that rope was just over my head.
    (2) The space between the knots in the rope, moving at 0.8c, was exactly one meter as measured in a side-by-side comparison to my standard meter stick.

    I am astounded to see what happen during that tiny interval of the rocket blast! The end of the rope jumped 0.122 Lyr from me and greatly exceeded the speed of light, so it seems. (Actually not as due to inertia of the rope it either stretched or broke, but in gedankens we are allowed to ignore some facts* to make our point) He too is even more astounded: From his POV, his acceleration made me jump away from the end of the rope, which is still 400 knots long.

    As I never heard about SR, I understand this sudden contraction of the rope by assuming the rope was wet and the hot rocket blast made it shrink. Your understanding of this gedanken as exposing error in SR is equally valid (and I do mean EQUALLY VALID).

    -----------------
    *Alternatively, the Massless Rope, MR, came from the Theoretical Physics Market. (MR is conveniently found right next to the frictionless pulleys.)
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-26-09 at 08:02 PM.

  20. #560
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I bet that is an original paradox invented by MacM. I have always said two things about you:
    (1) you are clever and inventive.
    (2) you are imprecise and ambiguous with words.
    I could say thanks but I won't because I don't see this as being clever or anything but pragmaticcand open minded.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    You often fail to tell whose clocks are used to measure time intervals. I used T* or T’ to be precise, but you and QQ object to the excessive length and complexity of my posts. There is more than the one word made red above, which is ill defined and ambiguous, but as you don’t like my long posts, I only discuss that red word:

    Here you fail to tell by whose meter sticks the “closer” is measured.
    I don't mean to be personally negative but

    ************************************************** *******
    “ Originally Posted by MacM
    ...Given you are 1.666 Lyr from earth according to earthlings while already receeding at 0.8c, you would then be only 1 Lyr from earth according to yourself.

    You then accelerate away to 0.85c or 0.05c increase in velocity, in a short enough period to not have distance traveled during acceleration over-ride the affect such that it can be ignored, you are now only 0.877966n Lyr away from earth. OR you are now 0.122 Lyr closer than you were before you accelerated away.
    ************************************************** *******

    1 - For anybody with normal reading comprehension it is abundantly clear who is measuring.

    2 - If you know relativity you should know that it is the moving frame that measures contraction. (Note I say measures, not experiences)

    3 - Based on the above your comments and objections are shown to be baseless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    The moving rocket with near infinite thrust did change it speed wrt me from 0.8c to 0.85c in negligible time, so it did essentially jump back towards me 0.122Lyr BY MY METER STICKS while his rocket blast gave him more momentum away from me.

    If you omit the essential (to not be ambiguous) blue text, as you did, this is a great paradox: Coming closer by blasting away!
    1 - See above. I do not see the requirement (other than to hold somebody's hand that is not familiar with relativity) to specify who is measuring contraction since that is mathematrically built into the theory, it is the moving frame.

    2 - I don't see it as a paradox but as a sure sign that spatial contraction is just a figment of man's (Einstein) made mathematical construct and not part of physical reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    The rocket ship guy comes from a long line of sea going men and continues the family tradition:

    He trails a knotted rope behind his ship and it just so happens, by strange chance, that two things were true at the instant he let off his near infinite force rocket blast:
    (1) The end of that rope was just over my head.
    (2) The space between the knots in the rope, moving at 0.8c, was exactly one meter as measured in a side-by-side comparison to my standard meter stick.

    I am astounded to see what happen during that tiny interval of the rocket blast! The end of the rope jumped 0.122 Lyr from me and greatly exceeded the speed of light, so it seems. (Actually not as due to inertia of the rope it either stretched or broke, but in gedankens we are allowed to ignore some facts* to make our point)
    1 - You can ignore the rope breaking,etc because the rope is not in motion.

    2 - Why would you think only space contracted and not physical dimension of mass which occupies space? The rope should also contract and seem to stay along side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    He too is even more astounded: From his POV, his acceleration made me jump away from the end of the rope, which is still 400 knots long.
    Each knot contracted and got shorter (if you believe in contraction).

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    As I never heard about SR, I understand this sudden contraction of the rope by assuming the rope was wet and the hot rocket blast made it shrink. Your understanding of this gedanken as exposing error in SR is equally valid (and I do mean EQUALLY VALID).
    I don't see it as validating anything but certainly raising legitimate questions about the mathematical formalisim of SR.

    1 - This and many other simular considerations is the basis to suspect that the invariance of light is a matter of light generation and not propagation. i.e. - different observers are seeing different photons and not the same photon being invariant.

    2 - Overall I see NO basis to ignore the dilated condition of an accelerated clock when computing trip time in the accelerated frame. i.e. - The accumulated trip time by the accelerated clock is fully accounted for and is only correct if distance does not change.

    Perhaps you should go back and re-read my scenario about cars going between cities known to be 60 miles apart.


    Of more interest is the basic physics consequences. i.e. - If you accelerate away just right you never move. You have Force from F = ma. You are consuming fuel (energy) up the gazoo but Wk = F * d and you have no "d" hence no work achieved for the F produced from the consumption of energy.

    If energy cannot be created or destroyed where did it go?

    Tell me where the logic is wrong.
    Last edited by MacM; 07-26-09 at 11:04 PM.

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
  •