1. CptBork,

Well I hijacked MacM's thread enough today. I posted my reply to your questions in the new thread that I started (Gravities Influence On Light).

2. Originally Posted by MacM
Which makes such differences a matter of "Perception" not physical reality.

i.e. - The reality is that given two clocks that are synchronized at common rest and one accelerates away while the other remains at rest; both share a "Relative Velocity" and both "Percieve" the other as dilated; the fact turns out when comparing them subsequent to having had relative velocity is that ONLY the one accelerated clock is dilated.
As I already explained in my example, that depends entirely on the frame you use to synchronize the clocks. Both observers will correctly argue that their measurements prove the other observer's clock was dilated. Both observers are also free to disagree about when the other person's clock was started with respect to their own. The twin who stays at rest argues both clocks are synchronized at the start of the acceleration. The twin who accelerates argues that the "stationary" twin's clock started ticking too soon.

Originally Posted by MacM
No what is absurd is that relativist refuse to acknowledge the obvious and that is Einstein's SR only describes "Illusions of Motion" and physicists today actually use LR , a preferred frame view which eliminates the inherent symmetry of SR to predict results but then claim it is SR.
My response above already adresses this complaint. SR leaves zero ambiguity about how the clocks will compare at the start and finish of the experiment. At no point in the calculations does anyone need consider that "A is at absolute rest, B is in absolute motion" or vice versa. You can pick any frame you want to be the "rest frame", and the math says the clocks will still compare in the exact same way. In any case, I work with all kinds of particle data, and quite often the lab frame is not the most convenient frame to treat as the rest frame, it all depends on what the particles are doing and how fast they're moving.

Originally Posted by MacM
Totally false. I have repeatedly said what is being done is fine and useful mathematically but they need to simply acknowledge the truth and that is "Relative Velocity" is not a cause for physical change.

If they did then perhpas those that are looking for the "Why" would get more attention rather than being baggered and labled by the believers.
So then you acknowledge relativity is perfectly self-consistent, and doesn't leave any ambiguities as to how it's applied to solve real world problems? You agree there's no experimental evidence to rule it out, even if you think there's something wrong with the experiments that verify it? Your argument is that all this space and time stuff is an illusion, and every experiment we do is just subject to this same illusion?

Ok, fine. I don't think it's an illusion, because I believe it explains an enormous amount of anomalous findings, and there's nothing to contradict this viewpoint, no natural reason to rule it out. Help me out here a bit. I'm having trouble seeing how your sense of logic should dictate the way nature chooses to work. I'd like to see just what your viewpoint adds to the discussion, what progress you've been able to make. I doubt there is any, just like Lorentz got stuck with the aether a century ago. Sorry, not going to buy into Mac's arguments just because Mac doesn't think a relativistic spacetime is plausible.

Originally Posted by MacM
I appreciate your acknowledgement of my past although I don't see that an issue since the issue is "Relative Velocity" and if what I'm saying is true then my education and experience or achievements have no bearing on the issue.
I just acknowledged your past as a means of explaining why your arguments will receive at least some considerations, whereas Quantum Quack's will be treated as if he doesn't know anything more about Relativity than the name of its inventor.

Originally Posted by MacM
I fully agree but there is a large difference between something being physically "Counter Intuitive" and being "Physically Impossible". For James R (or others) to suggest that the observed mutual dilation between to clocks with relative motion is physically real and not merely an "Illusion of Motion" is assinine.
You misquoted me, I didn't say the stuff you attributed to me in this reply, it was AlphaNumeric. Please be more careful about who you quote saying what.

3. I've said it before, MacM, and I'll say it again: Nature doesn't care about your common sense. Lots of things that science have shown to be true about the universe defy common sense, even here in "Middleworld". The further away we get from these few orders of magnitude where that common sense was learned, the more things become non-sensical, or, as you like to put it, "physically impossible", until, in those domains of the world where relativistic or quantum effects dominate, your common sense is worthless.

Originally Posted by MacM
Your arbitrary mathematical formalisim creates the contraction but it has never been measured, observed or produces any permanent change physically.
Why do you keep repeating things you know not to be true? It's been a long while, but surely you haven't forgotten that I have previously given you a reference to a PRL article with direct imagery of the Lorentz contraction?

And what's this sudden qualifier of "permanence" doing there?
Eliminating spatial contraction eliminates numerous "Counter Intuitive" issues without altering the final results of relativity.
Of course, "eliminating spatial contraction" would hugely complicate the mathematical description in numerous ways (since, as you know, it follows directly from the basic postulates), and would definitely alter the "final results", since it kinda is a result. In any case, even if, by some miracle, you could get the same results out, the principle of parsimony (which is, yes, mainly an aesthetic thing) would lead everyone to still use that classical theory. "Counter-intuitive" does not mean wrong, except in your head.

But again, mods, I ask: What the fuck is this thread still doing here?

4. Originally Posted by CptBork
As I already explained in my example, that depends entirely on the frame you use to synchronize the clocks. Both observers will correctly argue that their measurements prove the other observer's clock was dilated.
We seem to be talking past one another. There is no choice of frames to synchronize. I said "Two clocks are at common rest and are synchronized......". They are in the same frame.

And yes both will "Observe" the other as dilated for as long as there is relative velocity but when they are once again in a common rest frame only one will be dilated relative to the other or they will both still be synchronized if both accelerate equally regrdless of whether they are co-moving (no rlative velocity) or in opposite directions and have maximum relative velocity.

The relative velocity they experience does not affect either clock physically. The "Actual Velocity" induced by acceleration does and the more acclerated clock will be dilated relative to the other.

Please confirm this fact or provide falsification.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Both observers are also free to disagree about when the other person's clock was started with respect to their own. The twin who stays at rest argues both clocks are synchronized at the start of the acceleration. The twin who accelerates argues that the "stationary" twin's clock started ticking too soon.
Sorry this makes no sense. They are synchronized side by side, no relative motion and no simultaneity shift. You seem to be trying to take a situation where you stumble acrosss something already having relative motion, go through some synchronization procedure and then claim to be able to predict who is dilated.

I would say that is fantasyland physics and can never be proven.

Originally Posted by CptBork
My response above already adresses this complaint. SR leaves zero ambiguity about how the clocks will compare at the start and finish of the experiment. At no point in the calculations does anyone need consider that "A is at absolute rest, B is in absolute motion" or vice versa. You can pick any frame you want to be the "rest frame", and the math says the clocks will still compare in the exact same way.
And I say hogwash. That is nothing more than a mathematical extrapolation of theory into an area never tested and for which there is no supporting emperical data.

Originally Posted by CptBork
In any case, I work with all kinds of particle data, and quite often the lab frame is not the most convenient frame to treat as the rest frame, it all depends on what the particles are doing and how fast they're moving.
Tell us what moving frame you have tested showing by emperical data that the lab frame became physically dilated once compared in a common rest frame. We wait your data.

Because this is the only issue I have raised. I have not objected to the "Illusion" during relative motion that both will appear dilated.

Originally Posted by CptBork
So then you acknowledge relativity is perfectly self-consistent, and doesn't leave any ambiguities as to how it's applied to solve real world problems?
As applied the math is ultra precise and should not be thrown out with the bath water. But it shouldn't be referred to as SR. It is more equivelent to LR but without the universal absolute rest frame. As applied the predictions consider who switched frames (accelerated and therefor has actual velocity, not mere relative velocity. There is no emperical data to support the arguement that the resting clock dilated relative to the traveling clock. That feature vanishes once the relative velocity vanishes. It is not a physical condition. It is like saying the universe is red because you put on red glasses.

Originally Posted by CptBork
You agree there's no experimental evidence to rule it out, even if you think there's something wrong with the experiments that verify it?
The only experiments I think are being mis-evaluated or pplied is that showing light to be invariant. I find it more rational to believe that is a phenomena of photon generation that is not yet understood where different observers are seeing different photons rather than all observers are seeing the same photon with an invariant quality.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Your argument is that all this space and time stuff is an illusion, and every experiment we do is just subject to this same illusion?
Not at all. The time dilation seems real enough but there is just no logic or support for time-space perse' That is spatial contraction is nothing more than a mathematical artifact from a forced and flawed construct.

You stipulated an accelerated clock is dilated but then once in the moving frame you treat clock ticks as being equal to a resting clock tick and since the moving clock accumulates less time you then justify it by saying he traveled less distance.

Whereas if you stipulate the axxelerated clock is dilated (physically ticking slower) compatred to the resting clock and treat it as physical in all frames the accumulated time of the moving clock for a trip is fully and correctly accounted for ONLY if distance remained fixed.

It is my position that in creating the "time-space" construct Einstien has you switch time standards between frames. i.e. - If accelerated to 0.6c, gamma = 1.25 and t = 1,000 ticks then t' = 800 ticks.

If you missed my car going between cities 60 miles apart let me know otherwise please comment on that scenario.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Ok, fine. I don't think it's an illusion, because I believe it explains an enormous amount of anomalous findings,
What findings (emperical data) do you suggest falsifies my view?

Originally Posted by CptBork
and there's nothing to contradict this viewpoint, no natural reason to rule it out.
Other than common sense backed by the fact that reciprocity has never been tested; hence there is no emperical support, nor does it appear testable; which standard applied to anyother theory falsifies it at face value.

Please tell us how you propose to test a situation where you observer two objects in space with relative velocity to each other where you will emperically prove each is physically dilated relative to the other.

I repeat "Physically", not "Appears". That is set up a grid and have them traverse the grid such that you have control over when data is compared to synchronize and subsequently test accumulated time and have them transmit a digital tally of accumulated time and tell me you have the capability to correctly predict the results.

YOU DO NOT.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Help me out here a bit. I'm having trouble seeing how your sense of logic should dictate the way nature chooses to work.
I have to say only that Einstien also dictated how nature should work. I am not making a comparison but it is a fact. SR is just theory. It seems mostly correct with respect to there being relavistic affects but in practice the basis "Relative Velocity" is ignored and you apply relativeity along the LR view where you select a preferred frame when it comes to actual testing and emperical data predictions.

Originally Posted by CptBork
I'd like to see just what your viewpoint adds to the discussion, what progress you've been able to make.
1 - I'm not sure I can say my view adds anything other than a bit of realisim to physics.

Originally Posted by CptBork
I doubt there is any, just like Lorentz got stuck with the aether a century ago.
Yes and I do not advocate a static aether either. I have made some suggestions about possibilities but they are backed by nothing but conjecture and the fact that they would seem to eliminate the numerous "Counter Intuitive" aspects of relativity.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Sorry, not going to buy into Mac's arguments just because Mac doesn't think a relativistic spacetime is plausible.
Yes and I don't suggest we should abandon relativity but to at least start being honest about it and stop being so defensive of any suggestion that perhaps it should be modified in some way.

1 - The first step would be to acknowledge what basic SR advocate includes a lot of "Transitional" affects (maybe you like that better than Illusions) but that to get emperical data showing physical affects one must consider who has actual motion vs mere relative motion.

2 - The second step would be to re-evaluate the concept itself of time-space and dwetermine what it means to have each observer calculate his own velocity using his own time standard and not assume conditions from another frame apply to that frame.

I'll be the first to admit that my view is more complex to work with but I don't think that should be a consideration, the consideration is what is more rational as a physical theory. You can continue to use what you hve as is but you need to explore the alternatives.

Originally Posted by CptBork
I just acknowledged your past as a means of explaining why your arguments will receive at least some considerations, whereas Quantum Quack's will be treated as if he doesn't know anything more about Relativity than the name of its inventor.
He He. For this forum that is great progress.

Originally Posted by CptBork
You misquoted me, I didn't say the stuff you attributed to me in this reply, it was AlphaNumeric. Please be more careful about who you quote saying what.
My bad and I know what it is like to have others put words in your mouth. Sorry.

One last point in my own defense. In contrast to the many names I've been called here, Crank, Crackpot, etc.., I am not entrenched into an idea. If anyone provides hard proof that the concept is flawed I would abandaon it forthwith.

However to date what I get is a series of snide innuendo, etc about intelligence, understanding, appeal to authority or "but SR says" type replies.

When features of SR are being challenged what SR says is not adequate rebuttal. There must be physical proof that the alternative is not consistant with emperical data.

5. Originally Posted by funkstar
Why do you keep repeating things you know not to be true? It's been a long while, but surely you haven't forgotten that I have previously given you a reference to a PRL article with direct imagery of the Lorentz contraction?
1 - I am very aware of the EM claim for SR. It is not impressive. It only shows magnetic vortice collisions contracting with velocity not spatial contraction between moving vortices. i.e If this test covered two vortices 1 micron long and is done between points "A" & "B" 10 microns apart, are you telling me that A & B became 8 microns apart? Of course not. What you saw was a shift in the crash zone with impact velocity not space itself.

2 - I have repeatedly stated that I give a damn about "Translational" changes but only permanent changes supported by emperical data. Don't you dare try to shift the discussion into other territory then post you BS.

3 - If you had an ounce of reading comprehension you would have noticed that what they measured was the "Collision" region of two magnetic vortices, not spatial distance between moving vortices. How in the hell do you tranlate that into proof support of spatial contraction between moving bodies? Only the collision regime got smaller.

Guess what take two cars and have them do head on crash tests. First at 10 Mph then at 100 mph. I predict that the collision regime at 100 mph will be much smaller and of higher density. This is nothing more thn fields being able to penetrate the tunnel junction barrier further with greater velocity. But nothing in the distance between them changes while approaching.

Originally Posted by funkstar
And what's this sudden qualifier of "permanence" doing there?
It is only sudden if you just read your first MacM post. I have said for years that the only interest is in physical change supported by emperical data - permanent change due to motion.

Originally Posted by funkstar
Of course, "eliminating spatial contraction" would hugely complicate the mathematical description in numerous ways (since, as you know, it follows directly from the basic postulates)
WEBSTER:

Postulate - 2) to assume without proof to be true, real, or necessary

Not an overwhelming basis for arguement. It is more rational to assume a lack of understanding of the apparent invariance of light and that the entire basis for SR is basless.

Originally Posted by funkstar
, and would definitely alter the "final results", since it kinda is a result. In any case, even if, by some miracle, you could get the same results out, the principle of parsimony (which is, yes, mainly an aesthetic thing) would lead everyone to still use that classical theory.
And I have not said trash what you use today. I have just said be honest and not so defensive and seek greater truth. Perhaps you might discover something you otherwise will not.

Originally Posted by funkstar
I fully agree with this but "Counter Intuitive" is completely different than "Physically Impossible" or "Unjustified Basis"[/QUOTE].

Originally Posted by funkstar
But again, mods, I ask: What the fuck is this thread still doing here?
Quite frankly because they aren't quite a big an A--Hole as you appear to be. You have far to much ego and far to little curiousity and don't understand the merit of such discussions.

Even if I'm wrong and you certainly haven't shown that to be the case, there is good educational value to such discussions. You want to play teacher and say "Listen to me"

Who in the hell would learn anything new if they did that.?

The only thing deserving to be in the cesspool is your membership - twit.

6. Originally Posted by funkstar
...The time for rational response is long past, and only ridicule is left...
Yes reason and facts like all of SR results follows from the constant of light speed and physics being the same in all inertial frames has failed to persuade MacM for more than 5 years. Thus, I agree it is “time to give ridicule a chance” so I will tell of a little known experiment that NASA did:

They sent two rockets, A & B, from Earth to land on Pluto, side by side so Pluto would be their last "common rest frame" and while mutually at rest each was to check out the other to determine which was in better condition to blast off into deep space. B was chosen as A’s fuel supply was leaking due to micro meteorite impact.

After B blasted off from Pluto and achieving inertial speed VBp wrt Pluto or VBa wrt to A as A is still resting on Pluto. NASA then computed the Time Dilation, TD, of B, TDB, wrt to A, TDBa, by inserting the speed of B wrt A, VBa, into the standard SR formula. I.e. TDBa = SR(VBa) where SR( ) represents that formula, which MacM also uses.

Unfortunately, later careful review of the data found that B had NOT come to complete rest on Pluto. (It had landed on slightly sloping hillside that was covered with methane ice and steadily very slowly slid down the hill as the pressure of its mass melted the ice. It never was at rest wrt A on Pluto. On Pluto it always had had steady motion wrt to A of ~1cm/ year as the ice melted under it and refroze. (A had come to rest against a rock and never moved.)

Thus contrary to original NASA's plan, Earth was their last common rest frame, not Pluto. As MacM mandates, in post 93, NASA re-computed the two Time Dilations separately: (1) TDBe, by inserting the speed VBe wrt to Earth (as the subscript “e” indicates) into the standard SR formula and also (2) computed TDAe with velocity VAe. Note that VBe is very different from VBp = VBa as Pluto is rapidly moving wrt Earth especially near perigee where this was all done.

MacM states (I will give his post 93 below) that the correct way to compute TDBa is to compute each separately and subtract using the speed wrt the Earth as that, not Pluto, was their last common rest frame.

I.e. TDBa = {TDBe - TDAe} where again the sub script "e" indicates that speeds wrt Earth must be used and the formulae is symbolically indicated by SR ( ):

TDBa = {TDBe computed by SR(VBe) - TDAe computed by SR(VAe)} But do to the fact SR( ) is highly non linear,

TDBa = {TDBe by SR(VBe) - TDAe by SR(VAe)} is very different from TDBa = SR(VBa)

Amazing how B, very slowly sliding down that ice hill at 1cm /year dramatically changed the Time Dilation of B wrt A still sitting on Pluto by a very large amount. But it must be true as MacM says in post 93 that this is how to compute, I.e. by the difference of their separately computed time dilations using the speed wrt their last common rest frame, in this case the Earth, not Pluto, due to the 1cm/ year velocity of B sliding on the ice.

Here from Post 93 is where MacM tells that one MUST take the difference in their time dilations with velocity from their last common rest frame to get the Time Dilation of one clock wrt a clock which also is no long at rest in their common rest frame:
Originally Posted by MacM
... I have given an example where both clocks were initially at rest at the CPF {Common Preferred Frame} but each accelerated to some different absolute velocity to it and have relative velocity to each other. In this case there will be dilation between the clocks but to determine what it is you must calculate each clock relavistically to the CPF and then compute the differential time dilation.

The differential then becomes the physical dilation that will be supported by empirical data and the SR computed time dilation due to their mutual relative velocity to each other will not be empirically supported, it is what I refer to as the "Illusion of Motion".... time dilation between them depends on their absolute velocities to the CPF not their relative velocity.

The relative velocity causing time dilation between them is still the differential of their absolute motion to the CPF not ds/dt between them. ...
Here MacM clearly states in the above that TDBa is the difference {TDBe - TDAe} = TDBa.

Although MacM no longer speaks of the CPF as that is impossible to determine. He now insists that the last “common rest frame” is the one that is used to SEPARATELY determine the time dilations prior to subtracting them; for example TDBe and TDAe if both A & B were launched from Earth, but this must be mainly a naming change as MacM states in post 303 that he has NEVER changed his POV. This despite post 198’s simple three-line scenario demonstrating mathematical that MacM two methods, approved in post 93, contradict each other!

7. Originally Posted by Billy T
Thus, I agree it is “time to give ridicule a chance” so I will tell of a little known experiment that NASA did:

.......................................

Although MacM no longer speaks of the CPF as that is impossible to determine.

He now insists that the last “common rest frame” is the one that is used to SEPARATELY determine the time dilations prior to subtracting them;
1 - Ridicule is important here and you have done a great job poking fun at yourself. Your scenario is ludricrus on several points but I'll not waste time on that.
2 - FYI: Your CPF and your CRF are one and the same. I have many times used the entire acronymn to define it as "Local Common Preferred Rest Frame".

I have dropped the local because the frame covers the entire universe. However, the reason for local was that I was taking data sitting side by side but it would have been more correct to have written "Common Preferred Rest Frame", locally.

In fact I have used a couple of other adjectives in defining it such as ".............Inertial Rest Frame" and "................Absolute rest frame". Buthose are not changes in view but changes in written adjectives defining teh localtion but all definitions apply and it is the same spot.

Got that now?

Originally Posted by Billy T
for example TDBe and TDAe if both A & B were launched from Earth, but this must be mainly a naming change as MacM states in post 303 that he has NEVER changed his POV. This despite post 198’s simple three-line scenario demonstrating mathematical that MacM two methods, approved in post 93, contradict each other!
FYI: GPS uses my procedure and computes orbit to the ECI and minus the Surface calculaton to the ECI produces the emperically correct velocity compensation .

The ECI (Earth Center Inertial) frame is a common preferred absolute rest frame. That simply means the veloicty of orbit is absolute to the center of the earth and it is not a case of symmetrical relative velocity. That is you cannot (as inSR) claim the orbiting clock is at rest and assert that the ECI has motion.

No it is absolute to and not relative to the ECI. You must be able to differentiate between "Actual Veloicty" and mere "Relative Veloicty". The ECI has no actual velocity nor relative velocity to orbit. It is a local absolute preferred rest frame.

The fact is in the stupid scenario you just posted asuming the clocks were synchronized before launch and underwent identical acceleration and deceleration(excluding the imeasureble change due to the slipping down the hillside) upon arrival at pluto the correct dilation between the two would be to compute their respective velocities to their CPRF (Common Preferred Rest Frame) and any differential in time loss will be what would be emperically demonstrated.

Now you clearly want to diagree but I challenge you to show otherwise.

So wipe that smirk off your face.

8. Perhaps I need to explicitly explain to you why your POV is ridiculous – So easy to ridicule in post 586:

Initially the Time Dilation of B wrt A was computed with the velocity of B wrt A as it was believed that Pluto was the last common rest frame and A remained stationary on Pluto after B blasted off.
I.e. the time dilation was calculated using ONLY the velocity of B wrt A (Or wrt to Pluto as A is sitting on Pluto).

After it was discovered that B never exactly came to rest on Pluto as it was slowly sliding (at only 1cm/year) on an ice slope, that made Earth the last common rest frame, so by your approved procedure The time dilations of BOTH clocks A & B wrt Earth's clocks had to be calculated separately and then subtracted to find a very different time dilation of B wrt A.

It is ridiculous that a tiny 1cm/year velocity makes a huge difference in the time dilation of B wrt A, but that is the result of your theory as you stated it in post 93.

PS to MacM:
There is no need to "wipe the smirk off your {my} face." Everyone of any intelligence is laughing at you now.
I bet even QQ can see how ridiculous your theory is when a tiny 1cm/year velocity greatly changes the results.

9. Originally Posted by Billy T
Perhaps I need to explicitly explain to you why your POV is ridiculous – So easy to ridicule in post 586:

Initially the Time Dilation of B wrt A was computed with the velocity of B wrt A as it was believed that Pluto was the last common rest frame and A remained stationary on Pluto after B blasted off.
I.e. the time dilation was calculated using ONLY the velocity of B wrt A (Or wrt to Pluto as A is sitting on Pluto).

After it was discovered that B never exactly came to rest on Pluto as it was slowly sliding (at only 1cm/year) on an ice slope, that made Earth the last common rest frame, so by your approved procedure The time dilations of BOTH clocks A & B wrt Earth's clocks had to be calculated separately and then subtracted to find a very different time dilation of B wrt A.

It is ridiculous that a tiny 1cm/year velocity makes a huge difference in the time dilation of B wrt A, but that is the result of your theory as you stated it in post 93.

PS to MacM:
There is no need to "wipe the smirk off your {my} face." Everyone of any intelligence is laughing at you now.
I bet even QQ can see how ridiculous your theory is when a tiny 1cm/year velocity greatly changes the results.
Posted by MacM "The fact is in the stupid scenario you just posted asuming the clocks were synchronized before launch and underwent identical acceleration and deceleration(excluding the imeasureble change due to the slipping down the hillside) upon arrival at pluto the correct dilation between the two would be to compute their respective velocities to their CPRF (Common Preferred Rest Frame) and any differential in time loss will be what would be emperically demonstrated.
1 - I suggest my "immeasureable" qualification is accurate and your "huge" assertion is what is laughable.

2 - Nothing you have posted demonstrates that the Earth and not Pluto is the correct reference. I clearly believe it is and you have shown no reason to conclude otherwise.

The difference as I stated would be immeasureable but none the less present.

You think this stupid little scenario proves anything makes you laughable. Anybody that sides with you on this one forfiets any claim to intelligence.

10. Gee wiz...

I learned in physics courses that a perfect measurement doesn't exist. Can anyone provide me an example of a "perfect" measurement...

11. Originally Posted by MacM
1 - I am very aware of the EM claim for SR. It is not impressive. It only shows magnetic vortice collisions contracting with velocity not spatial contraction between moving vortices. i.e If this test covered two vortices 1 micron long and is done between points "A" & "B" 10 microns apart, are you telling me that A & B became 8 microns apart? Of course not. What you saw was a shift in the crash zone with impact velocity not space itself.

2 - I have repeatedly stated that I give a damn about "Translational" changes but only permanent changes supported by emperical data. Don't you dare try to shift the discussion into other territory then post you BS.

3 - If you had an ounce of reading comprehension you would have noticed that what they measured was the "Collision" region of two magnetic vortices, not spatial distance between moving vortices. How in the hell do you tranlate that into proof support of spatial contraction between moving bodies? Only the collision regime got smaller.

Guess what take two cars and have them do head on crash tests. First at 10 Mph then at 100 mph. I predict that the collision regime at 100 mph will be much smaller and of higher density. This is nothing more thn fields being able to penetrate the tunnel junction barrier further with greater velocity. But nothing in the distance between them changes while approaching.
Since you're so casually dismissing the paper I will initially assume (completely without prejudice) that you have read it. In which case your misgivings seem rather strange given the following.

1) The article quite clearly states, on p. 1374, in column 1 (you know, the one directly below the images that show the Lorentz contraction): "Apart from the Lorentz contraction, the length of the collision region does not depend on the speed of the vortices."

Since this is in direct contradiction with your claim 3, it might leads skeptics to believe that you may not have read the article after all (though far be it from me to make such a claim), in which case I present you with a simple challenge, to quell such potential unbelievers: By demonstrating that you do at least have the article in your possession (in some form.)

2) What does the first and final sentences of the article say?
It is only sudden if you just read your first MacM post. I have said for years that the only interest is in physical change supported by emperical data - permanent change due to motion.
Hardly, but I frankly don't care enough to argue with your goal-post moving.

But I'll take the bait, which "permanent change due to motion" are you referring to? Certainly not Lorentz contraction, surely: After all, if a length contracted objected is brought to rest, then it isn't length contracted any longer, so the change isn't "permanent" in any meaningful way. But of course, this hardly supports the viewpoint that such effects are unphysical: Other dynamic notions, such as momentum aren't "permanent" to objects, either...

12. Originally Posted by MacM
...I suggest my "immeasurable" qualification is accurate and your "huge" assertion is what is laughable. ...
You intentionally missed the point. I was not speaking to the time dilation of B wrt A when both were on Pluto. I added a few words, in blue, to make that clear.

Here the heart of post 586 is again:

"... Initially the Time Dilation of B wrt A WHEN clock B is traveling in deep space was computed with the velocity of B wrt A as it was believed that Pluto was the last common rest frame and A remained stationary on Pluto after B blasted off.
I.e. the time dilation was calculated using ONLY the velocity of B wrt A (Or wrt to Pluto as A is sitting on Pluto).

After it was discovered that B never exactly came to rest on Pluto as it was slowly sliding (at only 1cm/year) on an ice slope, that 1cm/year made Earth, not Pluto, the last common rest frame*, so by your approved procedure The time dilations of BOTH clocks A & B wrt Earth's clocks had to be calculated separately and then subtracted to find a very different time dilation of B wrt A.

It is ridiculous that a tiny 1cm/year velocity makes a huge difference in the time dilation of B wrt A, WHEN clock B is traveling in deep space but that is the result of your theory as you stated it in post 93. ..."

I agree that while both are on Pluto the 1cm/year velocity difference makes an "immeasurably" small difference in their time dilation. It does however change what was the last common rest frame (from Pluto to Earth)- forcing by your procedure use of velocity wrt Earth instead of wrt Pluto - that makes a big and silly change in the computed time dilation of B wrt A when B is in deep space and inertially traveling at say 0.8C wrt the sun.

SUMMARY:
The fundamental reason why MacM's theory is stupid
is that a very tiny velocity of B wrt A while on Pluto (or any inertial frame where both A& B are almost, but not exactly at rest wrt to each other) DIS-QUALIFIES that inertial frame from being the "last common rest frame." Then all velocities used to calculate the time dilation, etc. switch* to be wrt some other frame where their relative velocity was exactly, not "almost" zero.

Standard SR does not care about the history of A & B (uses only the current relative velocity) but MacM's SR must go back and find their last common rest frame and use their velocities wrt to it in highly non-linear equations. Only a 1cm/year relative speed can force MacM to use velocities wrt an entirely different common rest frame. This perhaps adds the same 0.8C to both velocities, which does not "drop out" or "cancel out" in the non-linear equations.

--------------
*It is MacM's SR that has "frame switching" and a velocity slower than a sick snail can force MacM's SR to switch frames. - To use entirely different velocities to calculate with! How ridiculous can a theory be?

13. Originally Posted by Jozen-Bo
Gee wiz...

I learned in physics courses that a perfect measurement doesn't exist. Can anyone provide me an example of a "perfect" measurement...
And they were right.

14. Originally Posted by funkstar
Since you're so casually dismissing the paper I will initially assume (completely without prejudice) that you have read it. In which case your misgivings seem rather strange given the following.

1) The article quite clearly states, on p. 1374, in column 1 (you know, the one directly below the images that show the Lorentz contraction): "Apart from the Lorentz contraction, the length of the collision region does not depend on the speed of the vortices."

Since this is in direct contradiction with your claim 3, it might leads skeptics to believe that you may not have read the article after all (though far be it from me to make such a claim), in which case I present you with a simple challenge, to quell such potential unbelievers: By demonstrating that you do at least have the article in your possession (in some form.)

2) What does the first and final sentences of the article say?

Hardly, but I frankly don't care enough to argue with your goal-post moving.

But I'll take the bait, which "permanent change due to motion" are you referring to? Certainly not Lorentz contraction, surely: After all, if a length contracted objected is brought to rest, then it isn't length contracted any longer, so the change isn't "permanent" in any meaningful way. But of course, this hardly supports the viewpoint that such effects are unphysical: Other dynamic notions, such as momentum aren't "permanent" to objects, either...
I don't need to read your entire post to see your error. The claims of the authors are typical. Just as Ashby claims GPS proves SR. The way to get your name in lights and draw attention is to claim you have proven something about relativity.

But the unfortunate fact is the test only proved that higher velocity magnetic vortices penetrated the tunnel barrier further. Something that makes sense at the most basic electronic level. The barried is an insulater with voltage appled. Overcoming the columb force is not a brick wall but a sponge.

This test is no more valid than James R and others claiming that reciprtocity of time dilation due to observers with relative velocity is physically real at the clocks.

Emperiocal data does not support that conclusion nor does it support the claim that they photographed lorentz spatial contraction.

15. Originally Posted by Billy T
Perhaps I need to explicitly explain to you why your POV is ridiculous – So easy to ridicule in post 586:

Initially the Time Dilation of B wrt A was computed with the velocity of B wrt A as it was believed that Pluto was the last common rest frame and A remained stationary on Pluto after B blasted off.
I.e. the time dilation was calculated using ONLY the velocity of B wrt A (Or wrt to Pluto as A is sitting on Pluto).

After it was discovered that B never exactly came to rest on Pluto as it was slowly sliding (at only 1cm/year) on an ice slope, that made Earth the last common rest frame, so by your approved procedure The time dilations of BOTH clocks A & B wrt Earth's clocks had to be calculated separately and then subtracted to find a very different time dilation of B wrt A.

It is ridiculous that a tiny 1cm/year velocity makes a huge difference in the time dilation of B wrt A, but that is the result of your theory as you stated it in post 93.

PS to MacM:
There is no need to "wipe the smirk off your {my} face." Everyone of any intelligence is laughing at you now.
I bet even QQ can see how ridiculous your theory is when a tiny 1cm/year velocity greatly changes the results.
It is even more ridiculs that you attempt to ignore the truth and extremely laughable that you think you are being cute when you are really just showing your stupidity.

1 - I rightfully pointed out the diffence in comparitive time accumulation be the common rest frame earth or pluto would be immeasureable while you used terms like DRAMATIC and HUGE for the difference.

2 - Forget your BS and tell me what will the accumulated time differential be if you disregard Pluto and simply make a trip in space where one clock never stops but just changes speed while the other stops and then restarts.

3 - Your sceanario sucks on it's surface since you do not stipulate what vectors your clocks have in each phase of the test. Slidding down hill and flying away from the planet do not seem to be a direct relative velocity relationship.

SR requires the velocity used be relative between clocks.

4 - In my view the vector is not important hence the continued motion of "A" sliding down hill and not ever coming to a common rest on Pluto with the other clock means the clocks were not synchronized when the one clock re-launched from Pluto such that the correct time dilation between clocks must go bback to the common rest where they were synchronized.

5 - I surely hope NASA has better scientist than you doing their testing..

16. Originally Posted by Billy T
You intentionally missed the point. I was not speaking to the time dilation of B wrt A when both were on Pluto. I added a few words, in blue, to make that clear.

Here the heart of post 586 is again:

"... Initially the Time Dilation of B wrt A WHEN clock B is traveling in deep space was computed with the velocity of B wrt A as it was believed that Pluto was the last common rest frame and A remained stationary on Pluto after B blasted off.
I.e. the time dilation was calculated using ONLY the velocity of B wrt A (Or wrt to Pluto as A is sitting on Pluto).

After it was discovered that B never exactly came to rest on Pluto as it was slowly sliding (at only 1cm/year) on an ice slope, that 1cm/year made Earth, not Pluto, the last common rest frame*, so by your approved procedure The time dilations of BOTH clocks A & B wrt Earth's clocks had to be calculated separately and then subtracted to find a very different time dilation of B wrt A.

It is ridiculous that a tiny 1cm/year velocity makes a huge difference in the time dilation of B wrt A, WHEN clock B is traveling in deep space but that is the result of your theory as you stated it in post 93. ..."

I agree that while both are on Pluto the 1cm/year velocity difference makes an "immeasurably" small difference in their time dilation. It does however change what was the last common rest frame (from Pluto to Earth)- forcing by your procedure use of velocity wrt Earth instead of wrt Pluto - that makes a big and silly change in the computed time dilation of B wrt A when B is in deep space and inertially traveling at say 0.8C wrt the sun.
So you agree but now say it is silly. That is a riot. We are suppposed to be impressed by this?

Originally Posted by Billy T
SUMMARY:
The fundamental reason why MacM's theory is stupid
is that a very tiny velocity of B wrt A while on Pluto (or any inertial frame where both A& B are almost, but not exactly at rest wrt to each other) DIS-QUALIFIES that inertial frame from being the "last common rest frame." Then all velocities used to calculate the time dilation, etc. switch* to be wrt some other frame where their relative velocity was exactly, not "almost" zero.
Your scenario and question required that I clarify that the true common rest frame in that case would be earth. But I rightfully pointed out it was virtually a moot point. I was right and your attempt to belittle me has failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Standard SR does not care about the history of A & B (uses only the current relative velocity) but MacM's SR must go back and find their last common rest frame and use their velocities wrt to it in highly non-linear equations.
Lets clarify something here.

1 - Standard SR claims "Relative Velocity" causes mutual time dilation. There is absolutely NO emperical data to support that assertion.

2 - Given "A" has a velocity of -0.1c relative to you ("C") and "B" has a relative velocity of +0.6c relative to you, you would conclude that "A to "B" have a relative velocity of 0.7c. - Gamma = 1.4. Or each only sees the other tick approximately 71 times for their 100 ticks.

However according to "A" & "B" their Gamma = 1.064 and you conclude (using SR) that they each see the other tick 94 times to their 100 ticks.

"A" should only tick 99.5 ticks to your 100 ticks and "B" sould tick 80 ticks to your 100 ticks.

3 - But unknown to you the true facts are that at some point in history you, "A" & "B" were all at common rest with "D". You ("C") launched from "D" at +0.1c and "B" launched from "D" at +0.7c; such that "A" remained at rest.

Emperical data will only support a finding or predicition that "C" has a gamma of 1.005, "B" has a gamma of 1.4 where "C" will tick 99.5 times to "A'" 100 ticks and "B" will tick 71 times to "A's" 100 ticks. "C" will be dilated to "B" by 28.5 ticks. "A" & "D" remain synchronized. Accumulated time on clocks is always based on the rest frame where they were synchronized. .

4 - All above predictions using mere relative velocity are not supported by emperical data. Don't say that is from "A" or "D" POV because in my radioactive decay clocks scenario I showed I can move to any frame and the accumulated time on the clocks remain the same.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Only a 1cm/year relative speed can force MacM to use velocities wrt an entirely different common rest frame. This perhaps adds the same 0.8C to both velocities, which does not "drop out" or "cancel out" in the non-linear equations.
Technically yes but from a pragmatic view sub-luminal velocities where change is immeasurreable can b e ignored if you properly synchronize the clocks that have relative motion. But your question format required including the "Immeasureable" affect to stipulate where the true CRF was.

Originally Posted by Billy T

SR *It is MacM's SR that has "frame switching" and a velocity slower than a sick snail can force MacM's SR to switch frames. - To use entirely different velocities to calculate with! How ridiculous can a theory be?
Give me a break. You are being completely ludricrus.

1 - You have NO emperical data to support your contention that the correct rest frame of reference would be Pluto. You have NO emperical data to support your assertion that time dilation would be correct from Pluto assuming you actually correctly assigned vectors of motion which you didn't.

2 - Sliding down hill and flying away could be in opposite directions or in a co-moving direction in which case the "Relative Velocity" you use will be different. Immeasureable yes but you are the one that says "We have to be precise" and yet you post this gargbage and argue against your own standards.

3 - You have NO emperical data to support your claim that time dilation has physical reciprocity.

4 - And finally you have absolutely NO evidence to show that my view is inconsistant with any emperical data, so your slanderous post about my STUPIDITY is simply based on the fact that I disagree with SR, not for any failing of my view. I personally find the claim of physical reciprocity far more greater a STUPID view.

Sorry Billy you have made a complete fool of yourself.

17. Originally Posted by MacM
... I clarify that the true common rest frame in that case would be earth. ...
Thanks for admitting that B moving on Pluto even at 1cm/year instead of being exactly at rest wrt to A dis qualifies Pluto as being their last common rest frame.
If not for that 1cm/year motion then Pluto would have been their last common rest frame.

SUMMARY:
The slower than sick snail speed of B wrt A on Pluto makes MacM's SR go back in history to find a common rest frame other than Pluto and calculate using the different velocities wrt to it. I.e. "sick snail speed" makes MacM switch to very different velocities in the calculation* with the non-linear SR equations.

How silly can a theory be?

------------
*So MacM will not pretend to miss understand again, That "calculation" is for the time dilation of B, after it has blasted off from Pluto and is coasting without any acceleration at 0.8C away from the sun with A still sitting on Pluto, to serve as a radio relay station for the signals coming back from "deep space".

18. Originally Posted by Billy T
Thanks for admitting that B moving on Pluto even at 1cm/year instead of being exactly at rest wrt to A dis qualifies Pluto as being their last common rest frame.
You bet. Now lets see you demonstrate that using Pluto as a common rest frame produces a correct calculation considering you hve not stipulated your vectors to use SR nor have you confirmed synchronization on Pluto.

Originally Posted by Billy T
If not for that 1cm/year motion then Pluto would have been their last common rest frame.
Correct but only if they were synchronized there.

Originally Posted by Billy T
SUMMARY:
The slower than sick snail speed of B wrt A on Pluto makes MacM's SR go back in history to find a common rest frame other than Pluto and calculate using the different velocities wrt to it. I.e. "sick snail speed" makes MacM switch to very different velocities in the calculation* with the non-linear SR equations.

How silly can a theory be?
Lets snip this in the bud. I'm growing weary of you BS and unsupported slander.

Lets put this into a more rational context.

1 - We know (or you should) that SR does not have a point of applicability. That is even at sub-luminal velocites it is still functional even though the affect becomes immeasureable.

2 - Based on 1 above the issue becomes is time dilation based on mere relative motion or motion to a rest reference frame. Keep in mind I do not want to hear about what each observer "Sees" or "Percieves" while in relative motion but only what does emperical data support once the clocks have been returned to a common rest frame and compared.

Don't give me theoretical mathematical BS, stick to what you have physical data to support.

3 - Now lets re-write your a scenario but with a bit more common sense and computability.

"A" & "B" launch from eartrh ("C") in a comoving direction with equal acceleration and remain side by side until they reach 0.6c and they become interial. They travel at 0.6c for 10 hours according to "C". Then "A" decelerates to 0.1c in a brief period such that we don't need to compute the deceleration period affect and both continue to fly for another 10 hours according to "C".

QUESTION #1: What do you claim are the 1 second ticks accumulated on each clock when C reaches 20 hours?.
\
A = ?

B = ?

C = ?

QUESTION #2: What if "A" & "B" launch at the same time under equal circumstance but in opposite directions?

A = ?

B = ?

C = ?

Now if need be I'll write the control format such that each stops their clock when "C" reaches 20 hours. This control will be physical and not subject to simultaneity interpretations.

Originally Posted by Billy T
So MacM will not pretend to miss understand again, That "calculation" is for the time dilation of B, after it has blasted off from Pluto and is coasting without any acceleration at 0.8C away from the sun with A still sitting on Pluto, to serve as a radio relay station for the signals coming back from "deep space".
You still don't get it. You admit thatA & B have relative velocity but frankly you still have not specified vector for A and how it relates to B's vector.

You have not cleaned up you scenario.

You still want to argue theoretical SR mathematics; which wrongfully claims mere relative velocity determines time dilation. You have NO emperical data to support that assertion.

All emperical data shows that actual time dilatin (that which is recorded by accumulated times on clocks once at common rest subsequent to having had relative velocity) is based on who accelerted most from a common rest frame.

You have NO evidence showing my view is inconsistant with emperical ddata. So I refuse to play you stupid name calling game for that is all it is. You want to assert I'm stupid just because I say your view of physics is in error even though your view has no emperical support and you have no evidence my view is in conflict with any emperical data.

ENOUGH, ENOUGH, ENOUGH - Now answer the above question so that this issue can be put into perspective.

19. Originally Posted by MacM
I don't need to read your entire post to see your error. The claims of the authors are typical. Just as Ashby claims GPS proves SR. The way to get your name in lights and draw attention is to claim you have proven something about relativity.

But the unfortunate fact is the test only proved that higher velocity magnetic vortices penetrated the tunnel barrier further. Something that makes sense at the most basic electronic level. The barried is an insulater with voltage appled. Overcoming the columb force is not a brick wall but a sponge.

This test is no more valid than James R and others claiming that reciprtocity of time dilation due to observers with relative velocity is physically real at the clocks.

Emperiocal data does not support that conclusion nor does it support the claim that they photographed lorentz spatial contraction.
What do the first and final sentences of the article say, MacM?

20. Originally Posted by funkstar
What do the first and final sentences of the article say, MacM?

************************************************** *******
A. Laub, T. Doderer, S. G. Lachenmann, and R. P. Huebener
Lehrstuhl Experimentalphysik II, University of Tübingen, D-72076 Tübingen, Germany

V. A. Oboznov
Institute of Solid State Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Chernogolovka, Moscow district, 142432, Russia

Vortices (magnetic flux quanta) in Josephson tunnel junctions can move at velocities near the propagation velocity of light in the junction, and they undergo the Lorentz contraction. In annular junctions, pairs of vortices and antivortices are created; these move in opposite directions and collide with each other. Using low-temperature scanning electron microscopy, we can visualize the collision region. We observe the contraction of the collision region with increasing vortex velocity. With the assumption that the length of the collision region is proportional to the length of the vortices, we can directly image the Lorentz contraction of magnetic flux quanta.
************************************************** *****

2 - It really doesn't make a damn what the authors claim about directly imaging the contraction. What they describe is a collison zone and not spatial contraction between two moving vortices.

It is self evident that the collision zone varying with veloicty is a function of columb penetration into the tunnel barrier.

The fact that physics today would publish this BS is not a surprise. Anybody that claims to have anything supporting SR will be published however marginal or ludricrus the claim.

Those that claim to have test data in conflict are ridiculed and not published. We see it here in that people simply won't even take time to evaluate such information. That is not to say all anti-relativity claims are valid. They certainly are not but then neither are claims of research supporting relativity but the later are not challenged and are published.

Indeed numerous people here have routinely referred to the H&K atomic clock tests as proof of SR when in fact it was discovered a few years after the published report that the report did not use the raw data from the test. That data had been dramatically changed to even include one instance of changing the + / - sign of the clock change. There was also a memo to the Dept of Navy from Hafel stating the results were disappointing and nobody including himself could conclude any affect.

This is not to say clocks were not affected but the H&K test was to sloppy and proved nothing. OH BUT THEY SURE MADE CLAIM TO HAVE PROVEN EINSTEIN'S THEORY. Yea right.

What knowledge do you have about electroincs and particularily how tunnel diodes function? Your attitude seem to assume I don't well I do. Can you tell us about "Hole Flow" in electronics? Can you "Thevenize" a circuit?

Here is a link to one of my patents for a integrated circit computer design the first (9) pages are circuit schematics.

Traction pressure control system - http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...n&RS=IN/mccoin

This is a USPTO link . To view "Images" you will need to have or download free on site the TIFF viewer available at:

http://patft.uspto.gov/

by clicking "How to Access View Full-Page Images" over the right hand block of information. Then click on "Your system requirements for viewing images".

There are two TIFF options to down load. - FREE. You can then view any patent pages by clicking on images for that patent..