Thread: Mac's Final Relativity Thread

  1. #621
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    *sigh* And I had promised myself not to get involved in this thread. Alright, last post:

    No, that's not what I said. The vortices are, of course, also moving along the ring.
    Unfortunately your lack of technical knowledge keeps you from describing the affect properly and I have not been able to read it for myself. But to state the contraction was orthogonal (to anythning) suggests something is awry. I suspect it is your reading, understanding and hence ability to recite the test that is at the root of the problem here and not some outlandish claim on their part.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    So, in other words, it's not inconsistent at all.
    Ignoring your assertion the contraction was "Orthogonal" somehow and assuming the condensed collision zone was along the line of sight, then that would not be inconsistant -EXCEPT:

    1 - Seeing it only in the collision zone certainly suggests it is an affect other than lorentz contraction. Collision is just like a car crash it doesn't matter if the iron particles from a car or if it is two iron particles colliding in an accelerator. All restance to to collision is columb force. And the depth of penetration of columb force is a function of energy or collision velocity.

    That is physics 101 and I really fail based soley on the abstract how they can suggest otherwise. I repeat the qualifier here - "Based on the abstract"
    There is nothing about my position here that is glib.

    2 - Even more importantly is the fact that even in SR the affect is just between the traveling observer and resting observer. so to now suggest a third observer not in the line of sight sees and photographs the affect is - Well simply astounding. And exceptional claims require exceptional proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    Apparently, you didn't really understand what the article was about, did you? (And, interestingly, I didn't need to either in order establish that.) Which is why statements such as are completely delusional.
    What a joke. You finally honestly admit you lack knowledge to read and understand the article but then turn around and claim to not need to to judge my comments about the abstract for the article.

    I repeat once more what I said and it is very qualified "Based soley on the abstract I find the claims to be unjustified". Amazing.

    Now consider #2 above. You might start to wonder about that article youself - if not you should.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    You apparently do not have the expertise to dismiss the article based on the information in the abstract. Hell, you even missed the basic setup: the abstract (based on which you say their claim is "completely unjustified") writes that the junction is annular, and on top of that you got the movement of the vortices completely wrong! Even if you (by some miracle) do actually possess the necessary prerequisites to make any sort of evaluation of their claim, and are just a lazy reader, you seem to completely dismiss even the possibility of investigating it. That's not reasonable - it's just denial.
    I did just braze over the abstract but for a reason. The very idea that they apparently are claiming third party observation to lorentz contract between two objects with relative motion is simply ludricrus since in the first instance the affect is nothing more than a mathematical construct created by ignoring a emperically demonstrated affect called time dilation and where that constructed affect only exists between observers with relative velocity.

    SR doesn't even claim observable contraction to third parties or the rest of the univers. OMG grow up.

    Now if what they really saw were collective affects of Penrose Rotation I might give it further thought; except it would be difficult to explain a Penrose affect of a vortice structure.

    If you aren't familiar with Penrose look it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    are completely delusional.For those reasons I continue to claim the article as proof that 1) Lorentz contraction has been observed, 2) you know about it, and that 3) you are a willfully ignorant crank to keep denying it.
    You can claim any damn thing you want but that doesn't alter the facts of the case. You are a computer nerd, admittedly incapable of reading and understanding a physics technical paper of this sort, that believes on mere faith or ignorance that SR is the cat's meow and that therefore you can come on here and attack me and anything I say without any substivie proof other than your beliefs.

    Well I think that gives me just cause to be a bit pissed at you - don't you?
    I'm trying to give you a bit of sound advice but you son't ssem to want to learn.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    Moving on to CptBork's ever-so-reasonable stance: Completely orthogonal to the issue above is that even though you have training in "formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering", you seem completely unable to make any sort of coherent mathematical formulation of your own ideas, and most of your posting is bluster about "physical reality" and "illusions".
    Bubby if I or you could re-write physics I think we would both be getting the nobel. That is not in my realm. But as to our respective qualifications I suggest mine appear at least far more technical and formal than yours and frankly I find it offensive that you carry on with so little actual basis for your comments.

    I have had (3) formal debates with a high energy particle physicist. I held my own and we had mutual respect for each others views. I do not get angry just because you disagree but your basis for disagreement must be sound physics and you clearly have none.

    Your attack are based on nothing but your beliefs not knowledge and that irritates me - sorry but that is the reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    (Which is, why except for a few stalwarts with more patience than could be reasonably expected, nobody gives your "ideas" the time of day.) Go away, and come back when you have a coherent (and consistent) mathematical framework to replace relativity theory. You are wasting everyone's time, here.
    You can judge when it is coherent ? Give me a break. You come back when you have some actual physics background to assert that what I am presenting is in conflict with some emperical data. Considering nobody has yet I rather doubt a computer nerd will.

    Quote Originally Posted by funkstar View Post
    .I don't know to whom the Quixote analogy best applies: MacM for fighting again str, or us for fighting against him, but futile it is in either case. Goodday, gentlemen.
    I really hope that means "Goodbye" for you have contributed nothing of value here. Your opinions are like Assh___s everyone has one.

    When you first started your posts I was looking forward to our discussion because you talked like you knew something about the issues. It turns out you don't and therefore should be listening and not talking.
    Last edited by MacM; 07-31-09 at 11:05 AM.

  2. #622
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    For anyone interested I'm still looking for a source of the reference article. In the process I ran across another link with the same authors, 8 months prior, describing the sme experiment but the abstract says nothing about proving lorentz contraction.

    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v51/i10/p6542_1

    I wonder which version has sold most copies?

  3. #623
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    208
    MacM post 619:

    1 - In physics deceleration is also acceleration in the -
    direction. That is if you are moving east and apply the brakes you
    are effectively accelerating west.
    --It's for that reason, acceleration is ambiguous, not indicating an increase
    or decrease in speed relative to the original reference point, that I use both.

    2 - I do not advocate a universl fixed frame. That concept does
    not appear to work While I do not have a formalized view of it I'm
    inclicned to think there is a dynamic fabric to the universe such
    that every inertial veloicty is an absolute rest condition.
    --A universal fixed frame works very well, and coupled with a constant light speed, will produce all the effects of SR, and provide physical explanations for such.

    Interesting you say this. If you use a universal fixed frame you
    have introduced a universal absolute reference?????
    --You have the 'fixed background of distant stars' and the 'cosmic background radiation' as the closest thing to a universal frame. Why these forms of radiation, because light emission at c is independent of its source, i.e. events don't move. This uniqueness also means light is not part of any inertial frame, and therefore can be used as a universal measuring tool. The downside is, using current knowledge, the event does not leave a marker that would enable you to return to the point of emission.

    I agree the entire SR fiasco is based on trying to justify light
    invariance but they could have done better to consider the
    consequences of that view and to have looked for alternative
    explanations for the apparent invariant data.
    -- SR is not intended to give explanations for the effects. The theory mandates them (effects) to conform to the conditions (constant c, reciprocal views, etc.) imposed by an ideal symmetry.
    By analyzing physics at the elementary level of motion, if it is successful it will have wide application. It has proven itself very well experimentally, but for many, the popular expositions sound more like magic than physics. The discussions/debates seem to be essentially of interpretation.
    Reading publications, many by scientists, you learn they don't agree as to the reality or illusion of relativistic effects.

    I suggest a couple of things to consider. If you aren't aware of
    it there is a process, well understood, called Cerenkov Radiation.
    It is where particles traveling FTL (Faster Than Light) in a
    medium such as water, produces a blue-white glow of photons.
    -- The particles are only moving faster than the speed of light for that medium, but not faster than c for a vacuum!

  4. #624
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by phyti View Post
    MacM post 619:

    --It's for that reason, acceleration is ambiguous, not indicating an increase
    or decrease in speed relative to the original reference point, that I use both.
    The problem then becomes since there is no real physical difference in acceleration or decelleration you cannot link them to absolute energy because acceleration or decelleration become matters of observer view point.

    Quote Originally Posted by phyti View Post
    --A universal fixed frame works very well, and coupled with a constant light speed, will produce all the effects of SR, and provide physical explanations for such.
    Not sure I can agree here.

    1 - A & B are side by side at inertial rest. B launches from A and becomes inertial in another frame. It is emperically supported to believe that B is now dilated to A (Clocks ticking slower than B).

    However, given the very same acceleration and motion vectors where:

    2 - A, B & C are side by side at common rest and A luanches to some new inertial frame. A is now dilated to B & C (A is ticking slower than both other clocks).

    Now B launches and catches up with A and becomes inertial side by side with A. You now have A & B in configuration 1 above where they are both ticking slower than C.

    Such that if A now launches back toward C it mus increase tick rate to return to C's time standard at the same time we have already determined that when A leaves B it must dilate or slow it's tick rate. You have a situation where you are demanding that a clock both tick slower and faster at the same time.

    If A happens to launch away from C off of B then we would claim that A is dilating even further from both B & C. So from a perspective of just two frames vector has no bearing. The accelerated frame is dilated.

    But add a third frame and vector becomes signifigant.

    Quote Originally Posted by phyti View Post
    --You have the 'fixed background of distant stars' and the 'cosmic background radiation' as the closest thing to a universal frame. Why these forms of radiation, because light emission at c is independent of its source, i.e. events don't move. This uniqueness also means light is not part of any inertial frame, and therefore can be used as a universal measuring tool. The downside is, using current knowledge, the event does not leave a marker that would enable you to return to the point of emission.
    I agree that we can arbitrarily create a universal rest frame by simply assuming a 3D grid from the edges of the observable universe. It works part time but then there is time that requires you be at the ordinate of the grid and the grid moves with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by phyti View Post
    -- SR is not intended to give explanations for the effects. The theory mandates them (effects) to conform to the conditions (constant c, reciprocal views, etc.) imposed by an ideal symmetry.
    By analyzing physics at the elementary level of motion, if it is successful it will have wide application. It has proven itself very well experimentally, but for many, the popular expositions sound more like magic than physics. The discussions/debates seem to be essentially of interpretation.
    Generally agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by phyti View Post
    Reading publications, many by scientists, you learn they don't agree as to the reality or illusion of relativistic effects.
    I happen to be a member of the NPA which has 1,500 members. Many, many scientist that agree with me that there are problems with current physics.

    Quote Originally Posted by phyti View Post
    -- The particles are only moving faster than the speed of light for that medium, but not faster than c for a vacuum!
    Correct. But keep in mind that you are talking about the various medium indicies and their affect on the velocity of light.

    My point is if you consider space a dynamic medium (which I do) then it correlates to Cerenkov Radiation in the sense that the photons we observer are being produced AT v = c and it is NOT a case of A photon having been generated that propogates with an invariant quality to the relative velocity of multiple observers simultaneously.

  5. #625
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    To the unindoctrinated readers:

    Funkstar has committed what I think is an unacceptable standard of conduct.

    He came on here and assaulted me and my views with absolute statements implying he knew what he was talking about. The fact is there are different opinions out there in the scientific community.

    The relativist will attempt to make you believe that any of those opinions not in full agreement with their view is simply based on ignorance, etc. They routinely attack other highly educated and experienced physicist if they say anything against relativity.

    Where they claim THEY are right and all others are fools. I at least agree that my views are not formalized nor complete but that does not alter the differences I find with current theory.

    Nor does it automatically make anti-relativists right or cranks and crackpots.

    But in the final analysis it turns out that funkstar admits he is incapable of reading and understanding the paper he posted as proof and then assailed me based on that paper.

    That is inexcuseable.

    FYI: The following is the 1st reply I have gotten when inquiring of 50 physicists about the paper linked by funstar. I suggest it supports my conservative view based on my knowledge and the abstract. That is there is sound physics reasons to dis-believe the paper. My rejectio of it was properly qualified.

    ************************************************** ****

    Dear Dr. McCoin,

    There is a lot of nonsense out there. This looks like an example. If it were true that the Lorentz contraction had been photographed, this would refute special relativity, since Penrose and Terrill in separate papers around 1959 showed that the aberration of light would cancel length contraction (try putting in "invisibility of the Lorentz contraction" into Google). You need light to take photographs, and light is subject to optical aberration.

    Increasingly, experimentalists are lending themselves to these "observations" of what they think they are supposed to see (on the basis of half-understood theories, particularly those due to Einstein). Another example is two other physicists who recently claimed to observe retardation of gravity force action at speed c. A good critique has been given by Van Flandern at

    http://www.metaresearch.org/media%20...G-Kopeikin.asp

    I feel the same thing is happening to physics that is happening to the economy. Both are falling apart due to a treason of the clerks. When experimentalists cannot be trusted to report exactly what they have observed, it is the end. No more science is possible. No more building on the work of others. This has already happened in climate science. Science has morphed into politics. A perfect example of reading into observations what one wants to see is at

    http://www.reasons.org/physics/const...ture-validated

    Best, Tom.

    ************************************************** ****

    This is not claiming I was right but only that he most certainly out of line in his attacks on me because as much as relativists would like you to believe it is a slam dunk it is not. There is plenty of formal opposition to relativity out there.

    FYI: Here is the Google search referenced above. As I have posted threads about Terell-Penrose I was of course aware of this. It is note worthy that PRL also published this paper. Of course the paper didn't say Lorentz Contraction didn't occur. It says it could not be observed or photographed.

    ************************************************** *******************************8

    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v116/i4/p1041_1
    Phys. Rev. 116, 1041 - 1045 (1959)
    Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction
    Abstract
    References
    Citing Articles (56)
    Page Images
    Download: Page Images , PDF (1014 kB), or Buy this Article (Use Article Pack) Export: BibTeX or EndNote (RIS)
    James Terrell
    Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, University of California, Los Alamos, New Mexico

    Received 22 June 1959

    It is shown that, if the apparent directions of objects are plotted as points on a sphere surrounding the observer, the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a conformal transformation on the surface of this sphere. Thus, for sufficiently small subtended solid angle, an object will appear—optically—the same shape to all observers. A sphere will photograph with precisely the same circular outline whether stationary or in motion with respect to the camera. An object of less symmetry than a sphere, such as a meter stick, will appear, when in rapid motion with respect to an observer, to have undergone rotation, not contraction. The extent of this rotation is given by the aberration angle (θ-θ′), in which θ is the angle at which the object is seen by the observer and θ′ is the angle at which the object would be seen by another observer at the same point stationary with respect to the object. Observers photographing the meter stick simultaneously from the same position will obtain precisely the same picture, except for a change in scale given by the Doppler shift ratio, irrespective of their velocity relative to the meter stick. Even if methods of measuring distance, such as stereoscopic photography, are used, the Lorentz contraction will not be visible, although correction for the finite velocity of light will reveal it to be present.
    ************************************************** *********************

    Perhaps funstar should have been aware of this before embracing the paper.
    Last edited by MacM; 08-01-09 at 12:48 PM.

  6. #626
    funkstar
    your ass is grass

    you have been warned

  7. #627
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    funkstar
    your ass is grass

    you have been warned
    He He. That is a good one.


  8. #628
    how about this....

    MacM's Last Will and Testament

    gustav gets it all


    /eager

  9. #629
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    2nd response from a physicist. He has a sense of humor as well.


    ************************************************** ****
    Hi Dan,

    I agree with your suspicions.

    I investigated Special Relativity enough to see that it's invalid on many points. After that, I lost interest in the discussions on it.

    So-called "paradoxes" indicate fatal inherent contradiction. This means it is either a fabricated nonsensical statement like "I never lie", or else there legitimately remain undiscovered aspects to the quandary. It can also mean faulty interpretation of data based on preconceived erroneous ideas.

    Einstein, in spite of protests to the contrary, knew of the Michelson Morley experiment. The interpretation of the results of the MM experiment is that there is no aether.

    However, you know that even today, there is no proper description of light. And no one knows what the aether might be. In which case, M&M used light for the investigating tool, when they didn't even understand the tool. And they were looking for something, about which they knew nothing of its properties. The experiment then, was fatally flawed on at least two counts. Because they didn't know what they were doing, to save embarrassment, they declared the aether not to exist. And no one else argued about it, because they didn't have any better ideas.

    There is also the Non-Skewed Light Waves experiment (Laser Drag), which indicates the aether does not exist, but it uses light as the detecting tool as well.

    These are the only two experiments in all of history to declare the aether does not exist, and they are both fatally flawed.

    On the other hand, all sorts of everyday phenomena indicate the aether must exist. Even Einstein finally said that, "The aether must exist, because electromagnetic phenomena require it".

    But hold on: his Special Relativity assumed the aether not to exist!! These are two radically different situations: Either light is a wave with the aether as the wave medium, or there is no medium, and light is a particle. So the hole is sort of bunged up with Wave-Particle duality.

    So here is a hint: Waves really do "contract and dilate". Waves really do speed up and slow down as conditions in the medium change. Waves are an integral part of the medium. Particles are completely independent of the need for a medium.

    Lorentz and Einstein fooled around with math instead of mechanics. They disassociated their math from reality. The rules for waves and the rules for bodies are distinctively different but somewhat confusingly related. And so they mathematically transferred some of the properties from waves to bodies. In my opinion, not to be mean or arrogant; whereas Einstein made some remarkable "If:Then" predictions, I think he was wrong on everything. And so was Lorentz.

    It is necessary to go back to before the MM experiment to the greats like Galileo, Newton, Hertz, Mach, etc. Newton for instance, refused to say that "gravity attracts" because he did not know what the mechanism actually is. Bodies are simply impelled together. Galileo's Relativity is perfectly reasonable. Einstein's is the act of a desperate man.

    The result is typically this: If a body were accelerated to the speed of light, then mass would be infinite and length zero. Therefore, we see an infinite amount of mass contained in zero volume. I keep pointing this obvious fatal contradiction out to people, and get silence in return.

    You can see why I stopped getting into discussions on SR and GR.

    The problems go much deeper: There are no proper theories for the mechanics of Light, Gravity Force, Kinetic Energy, Magnetic Field, Electric Field, Weak and Strong Nuclear Forces, Fission Energy, Fusion Energy, Photovoltaics, Universe Expansion, Acceleration of Expansion, Pioneer Anomaly, or even what generates Earth's Magnetic Field and why the interior is so hot. They insist on using the term and formula for "Momentum" which appears to label the same thing as "Kinetic Energy". But mass x velocity does not equal mv^2 / 2. The Big Bang is merely a largely groundless theory promulgated as fact to the funding public. It is full of huge holes.

    Even the electronic devices to which you refer are not understood very well. They are designed according to engineering experiments, not theory. So now, how is one to explain an observation within such a device when he doesn't understand either it or what magnetism is?

    Bear in mind that a century has passed since Michelson, Lorentz and Einstein. A lot more data has been collected. Politics and funding issues aside; surely it is time for a break from Einstein and look at the data from a fresh, undirected perspective. Believe it; Einstein threw theory and research into the latest Dark Ages.

    If you're looking for something to keep you busy, Theoretical Physics has lots to play with. Try to base your ideas on engineering research like astronomy, not somebody's cosmology. Be very careful of high energy physics and experiments; they have to maintain their funding one way or "another". LIGO flopped, so have the neutrino experiments; they do not have even results they can legitimately guess at. String Theory is just a bizarre construct on top of bizarre constructs.

    OK, so you're looking at the abstract for a paper. The research has been funded by someone or some government agency, that doesn't even know what it's about. Publishing their results is
    mandatory if they are to get further funding. They have to say something.

    Ray.
    ************************************************** *****

    Enjoy.

  10. #630
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,688
    To Phyti: Welcome to Sciforums.

    I made larger and bold part of MacM’s post below as it is the heart of both MacM's and QQ's ( and many others not well educated in a university course level on SR) misunderstanding. You seem to demonstrate some knowledge of physics so I will explain MacM’s erroneous text / dilemma in the bold text below it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...1 - A & B are side by side at inertial rest. B launches from A and becomes inertial in another frame. It is empirically supported to believe that B is now dilated to A (Clocks ticking slower than B. …

    2 - A, B & C are side by side at common rest and A launches to some new inertial frame. A is now dilated to B & C (A is ticking slower than both other clocks).
    Now B launches and catches up with A and becomes inertial side by side with A. You now have A & B in configuration 1 above where they are both ticking slower than C.

    Such that if A now launches back toward C it must increase tick rate to return to C's time standard at the same time we have already determined that when A leaves B it must dilate or slow it's tick rate. You have a situation where you are demanding that a clock both tick slower and faster at the same time....
    Well made clocks NEVER CHANGE their intrinsic “tick rates.” For example, a cesium atomic clock counts a fixed number of cycles of some radiation from a cesium atom and when that specific count is achieved, a second has passed. The frequency of that radiation is determined by the energy difference between two cesium atom energy levels. For one cesium clock to change it “tick rate” the energy difference between these two energy levels would need to be changed; but cesium in one inertial frame has exactly the same energy levels as any cesium atom in any other inertial frame. Thus ALL cesium clock in ALL inertial frame ALL define the exactly the same second or “tick" at the same intrinsic rate, regardless of the past history such as in what other frame they once accelerated away from.*

    When clock A has completed the round trip and is back in frame where clock C has remained the entire scenario, B will measure it and all the other clocks stationary in frame C as ticking slower WRT “B’s second” as defined by B’s cesium clocks. I.e. A’s complex travel and acceleration history is totally unimportant. (MacM fails to understand this. MacM invents two types of motion, which no current measurement can distinguish between: “real”& “illusionary” motion.) Again: ALL cesium clock in ALL inertial frame ALL define exactly the same second or “tick" at the same intrinsic rate, regardless of the past history, yet exhibit “Time Dilation,” TD, when compared to the tick rate of clocks in a different inertial frame.

    The amount of this time dilation of ALL clocks resting in frame C depends ONLY on the relative velocity of frame C & B, for example the speed at which their two XY coordinate system origins are separating. Call that Vcb and plug that value into the standard SR( ) formula to find the Time Dilation, TD, of clock A wrt clock B or TDab = SR(Vcb) = TDcb for any and all clocks on C.

    Now if there is some other inertial frame, D, moving wrt C at speed Vcd, then it too will find ALL clocks in C as dilated wrt the “D second” i.e. the second defined by the cesium clocks at rest in frame D.
    Or TDad = SR(Vad) = TDcd = SR(Vcd) but TDad is not equal to TDab.

    MacM, I think, and QQ I am sure, and many other erroneously think that the existence of time dilation means the clock has had some physical change to make it tick at a different rate. They also erroneously are disturbed as to how the entire universe can contract and slow down just beacue they are now moving faster in a new inertial frame and yet no one else, who did not also start to move faster see no change in any part of the universe. – Their confusion is just lack of understanding. – Too much reading of popular, “dumbed down” descriptions of Special Relativity** and too little study in a university level course. The answer to both these dilemmas is simple: We ALWAYS measure other’s time intervals using OUR clocks and their distances using OUR meter sticks.
    ----------------
    *Physics is the same in all inertial frames – why no absolute rest frame can be selected but that is another argument with many of the miss-informed self taught “physicist” (MacM is not in that group on that question, but does have “common preferred rest frames” and thinks a clocks history does change it tick rate leading to the dilemma his last sentence in above quote asks about.)

    **{MY scenario in post 612, is designed to force MacM to used vastly different speeds in the SR formula in case 1 for case 2 even though the only difference between case 1 and case 2 is in case 2, clock b slowly move one meter on a table top during a 100 year interval. - That movement made its "last common rest frame" very different from the one used in case 1. Thus very different speeds were pluged into the SR equation for computing the Time Dilation between the two clocks in the two cases when they were only coasting in their final but different inertial frames. (When they had fixed relative speed wrt each other forever.) In MacM's SR that very tiny motion (or none in case 1) on a table top a million years earlier makes a huge difference in the computed time dialtion. MacM's SR is silly is it not?} Post 198 shows mathematically, following exactly MacM's instructions in post 93, that MacM's SR is also self-contradictory. There is too much in this thread but you may want to read some of these old posts. - Start with MacM's Post 93 so you see that still in post 612, I only follow his instructions when showing his SR is silly or in post 198 when showing it is internally self contradictory.
    Last edited by Billy T; 08-01-09 at 04:02 PM.

  11. #631
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    2nd response from a physicist. He has a sense of humor as well.
    He's a 'physicist' yet he thinks physics doesn't have a good model for even things like electromagnetism?! Yeah, he's a physicist like I'm an astronaut.

  12. #632
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    He's a 'physicist' yet he thinks physics doesn't have a good model for even things like electromagnetism?! Yeah, he's a physicist like I'm an astronaut.
    He damn sure is. I noticed that also but my point is only that funkstar was way out of line implying he was knowledgable when he wasn't and posting a paper he claimed proof against me when he couldn't even read the paper; plus the fact that there are numerous physicist that have a bone to pick with relativity not just me.

    Not to mention that the same publisher had published the Terell-Penrose findings that Lorentz Contraction could never be observed.

    The NPA has 1,500 members. Many, many scientist, physicst and even a Nobel winner (although he is now deceased), they all agree things are rotten in Nottingham.

    I have received one other reply from a physicist that believes TD doesn't exist but that Lorentz Contraction does. Since I have suggested that is a possibility but has added bizzar consequences I have replied back to him to discuss the issue further.

    The point is TD has been emperically demonstrated as being permanently physically real subsequent to having had relative velocity. Hence it is not and cannot just be an illusion of motion which is seen by both observers in relative motion.

    One (the accelerated frame) actually dilates. That has to be due to either TD of a clock based on some universal energy level or LC of space. It cannot be mere perception of a moving observer.

    I have choosen TD snce it yields fewer bizzar consequences.
    Last edited by MacM; 08-01-09 at 05:23 PM.

  13. #633
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Phyti,

    Just one note of caution. Billy T loves to write lengthy self congratulatory diatribes that nobody can follow and that don't apply to the issue, then make claim that he has proven something which on close inspection is just mumbo jumbo or irrelevant.

    You do not see Billy T directly respond to any posted scenario with a question. He makes up his own and wants to redirect the conersaton.

    Ask him instead to directly rebut my posts.
    Last edited by MacM; 08-01-09 at 05:24 PM.

  14. #634
    Some other guy
    Posts
    2,257
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    Just one note of caution. Billy T loves to write lengthy self congratulatory diatribes that nobody can follow ...
    Pot, meet kettle.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    The NPA has 1,500 members. Many, many scientist, physicst and even a Nobel winner (although he is now deceased), they all agree things are rotten in Nottingham.
    The American Institute of Physics has 125,000 members, and they all agree that relativity is one of the pinnacles of modern physics.


    Why is this thread here? There is no way to argue with crackpots. They are immune to logic and evidence.

  15. #635
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    To Phyti: Welcome to Sciforums.

    I made larger and bold part of MacM’s post below as it is the heart of both MacM's and QQ's ( and many others not well educated in a university course level on SR) misunderstanding. You seem to demonstrate some knowledge of physics so I will explain MacM’s erroneous text / dilemma in the bold text below it.
    Well made clocks NEVER CHANGE their intrinsic “tick rates.” For example, a cesium atomic clock counts a fixed number of cycles of some radiation from a cesium atom and when that specific count is achieved, a second has passed.
    So from this view TD doesn't exist and the lesser accumulated time on tested clocks means that Lorentz Contraction of distance traveled. Now that means that my arguement that moving observers must compute a different velocity is true. Funny you have phoo-phooed the concept.

    Because: v = ds / dt and your statment means that v is symmetrical then the accumulated time doesn't come out correct. Since the moving observer can't see or measure distance changing since his measuring rod also shrinks all he sees is t is less fro the trip. What he sees is v = ds / <dt = >v

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    The frequency of that radiation is determined by the energy difference between two cesium atom energy levels. For one cesium clock to change it “tick rate” the energy difference between these two energy levels would need to be changed; but cesium in one inertial frame has exactly the same energy levels as any cesium atom in any other inertial frame.
    So says Billy T even though he has no idea if energy is the same in all frames universally. If true you still need to resond to the issue of observer computed relative velocity above.

    I have also said many times here that LC is a possibility not TD but it is physically one or the other and not a matter of mixing physical affects between observer frames as a function of perception.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    When clock A has completed the round trip and is back in frame where clock C has remained the entire scenario, B will [color=red] measure it and all the other clocks stationary in frame C as ticking slower WRT “B’s second” as defined by B’s cesium clocks. I.e. A’s complex travel and acceleration history is totally unimportant. (MacM fails to understand this.
    And for the 8 millionth time I'm getting pretty damned tired of your continued ignorance. I have stated far to many times that while in relative motion the observers in relative motion can "measure" , "observe", See", "Percieve" the other as dilated.

    So where in the goddamn hell to you get off continuing to say MacM doesn't understand? That is bullshit and I'm tired of correcting your ass. stop it.

    Now address the real issue I raise and that is Once A is back in Frame C it will have accumulated less time than C. This is not a matter of perception it is a matter of mutually recorded and displayed accumulaed time on clocks now sitting side by side in a common rest frame.

    What B "Sees" is not and has never been at issue. But the fact that A has accumulated less time than C then it clearly had to have been tick dilated. That means it had to slow down going to B. Just as SR would have it slow down if launched away from B if it were not for the fact it was returning to C and hence must be increasing in tick rate not dilating from B.

    Now if you insist that TD doesn't occur and that LC is the answer then you still have the same physical problem. B having left C with relative velocity has contracted the distance between B & C. A having gone to B from C is at the same distance BUT now when A leaves B returning to C the distnce between A & B must contract while distance between A & C expands. You have only switched which attribute is conflicted unless you stipulate absolute direction and ignore the third observer.

    Now address this issue. Deal with it and knock off you diversional slanderous posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    MacM invents two types of motion, which no current measurement can distinguish between: “real”& “illusionary” motion.)
    Sorry dilated clocks tell the difference and if you knew how to think you would understand that. A & B launch in opposite directons from C with equal acceleration and inertial flight histories. When they return to C both have accumulated less time equally compared to C but A & B are still synchronized and accumulated the same total time for the trip.

    Both have relative velocity to each other but accumulated the same amount of time hence had to tick at the same rate (not dilated in spite of relative velocity to each other) Only an accelerated clock returns with less accumulated time, never a resting clock. So relative velocity does not cause clocks to become dilated. Hence somethingeslse does.

    Got it finally. Or is that just to difficult for your pea brain?

    Both have relative velocity but only the accelerated clock returns with less accumulated time. So relative velocity did not cause the resting clock to become dilated. Hence somethingeslse did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    MacM, I think, and QQ I am sure, and many other erroneously think that the existence of time dilation means the clock has had some physical change to make it tick at a different rate. They also erroneously are disturbed as to how the entire universe can contract and slow down just beacue they are now moving faster in a new inertial frame and yet no one else, who did not also start to move faster see no change in any part of the universe. – Their confusion is just lack of understanding.
    There you go again with your BS. I have said Lorentz Contraction can cause clocks to accumulated less time for a trip. So it is not a matter of not understanding. It is a matter of I choose to believe TD and notLC are at the root cause. That is because there are fewer bizzar consequence if you do so.

    But what is intersting is you don't even recognize that you stated SR where TD doesn't exist at the clock level also means moving observers must comput higher veloicty because a moving observer cannot measure a change in distance or length of his measuring rod.

    It is 100 miles between A & B if I travel there in 2 hours then I compute I went 50 Mph but if I go from A to B in 1 hour I must have been going 100Mph. iI do not sense or measure a change in either my clock or distance hence the problem persists regardless of views.

    That is the consequence of YOUR silly SR. Now square that with round tires rotating down a strip of highway turning gears that rotate a speed-o-meter cable that induces magnet drag to move a needle indicating speed.

    I don't believe LC is the answer hence a dilated clock tick rate must be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    – Too much reading of popular, “dumbed down” descriptions of Special Relativity**
    Too much reading of indoctrinated BS implying he is a dumb ass if he disagrees. Therefore he is compelled to agree even though his own version is full of holes he refuses to address.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    and too little study in a university level course. The answer to both these dilemmas is simple: We ALWAYS measure other’s time intervals using OUR clocks and their distances using OUR meter sticks.
    So he continues to argue the fantasyland version of physics where physical attributes are a matter of observer perception. Now who is silly because that leads to the reciprocity issue that generated the Twin Paradox which is resolved by the fact one twin switched frames (i.e. - accelerated to some different inertial velocity)

    That resolution voids the relative veloicty "Perception" arguement and the theory falls apart. No something physical and real happens and that is why it is not merely something observed DURING relative motion but when relative motion ceases ONLY one clock has been affected permanently and it is the accelerted clock, never the resting clock.

    Now address this issue and stop your BS.
    ----------------
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    *Physics is the same in all inertial frames – why no absolute rest frame can be selected but that is another argument with many of the miss-informed self taught “physicist” (MacM is not in that group on that question, but does have “common preferred rest frames” and thinks a clocks history does change it tick rate leading to the dilemma his last sentence in above quote asks about.)
    Not just my dilemma but yours. My statement about A,B & C is based on the basic arguement of SR but I acknowledge that to make A tick correctly once back in C's frame SR applies a + / - L to their equations to cause clocks to either increase or decrease tick rate.

    That infers an absolute change since the same motion can be + or - as a matter of B or C's view point. But when you apply the math for C you simply ignore the math for B.

    Ignoring things in SR seems to be a habit. That is how you justify LC is by ignoring the stipulateed dilated clock in the moving frame.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    **{MY scenario in post 612, is designed to force MacM to used vastly different speeds in the SR formula in case 1 for case 2 even though the only difference between case 1 and case 2 is in case 2, clock b slowly move one meter on a table top during a 100 year interval. - That movement made its "last common rest frame" very different from the one used in case 1. Thus very different speeds were pluged into the SR equation for computing the Time Dilation between the two clocks in the two cases when they were only coasting in their final but different inertial frames. (When they had fixed relative speed wrt each other forever.) In MacM's SR that very tiny motion (or none in case 1) on a table top a million years earlier makes a huge difference in the computed time dialtion. MacM's SR is silly is it not?} Post 198 shows mathematically, following exactly MacM's instructions in post 93, that MacM's SR is also self-contradictory. There is too much in this thread but you may want to read some of these old posts. - Start with MacM's Post 93 so you see that still in post 612, I only follow his instructions when showing his SR is silly or in post 198 when showing it is internally self contradictory.
    What a load of crap. OMG. "Vastly different speeds". No such thing. I responded to your BS post with a very qualified response. You stipulated that the one observer did not come to complete rest. That made the Common Rest Frame go back one step further in your scenario where they were stipulated as being at common rest.

    I SIPULATED THAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE IMMEASUREABLE BUT THAT HAVING NOT ACTUALLY COME TO A FULL REST AT THE SECOND LOCATION MOVED THE COMMON REST FRAME.

    HOW DARE YOU DISTORT MY REPLIES AND CLAIM "vastly different results". You have NO emperical data to support your claim and the ONLY issue at hand is the total accumulated time on the two clocks after there back in a common rest frame. That difference in total accumulated time will be IMMEASUREABLY different just as I said.

    Pardon my french but you are a goddamn deliberate liar. Nothing you say has any merit any more.
    Last edited by MacM; 08-01-09 at 07:29 PM.

  16. #636

    a four switch clock triggering as a single event

    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork
    I haven't said much about length contraction up to this point, and I missed your scenario, so a repeat or reference to post # would help. Sounds from the looks of it like you may be trying to set up a paradox like the famous "giant truck in tiny garage" paradox. According to the Lorentz contraction, a 30-foot tractor trailer is capable of fitting into a 15-foot garage if it's moving close enough to the speed of light. You might object that from the trucker's point of view, they ought to see the garage contract even smaller than 15 feet (and they will indeed see this), so how can the house owner see the truck park in his garage? The answer is that the house owner sees the front of the truck line up with the front of his garage and the back of the truck with the back of the garage at the same time, thus arguing that the truck is parked. From the trucker's POV, the front of his truck and back of his truck are lined up with the respective ends of the garage at different times. This means that if the homeowner sees the truck fit in his garage, it's guaranteed that a split second later the truck either bursts through the wall or else crunches up like an accordion.'
    I have a problem with the statement I cut out of your post #601 above.

    Suppose the garage is configured with mechanical switches that are separated by the garage length and that similar switches are located on the truck also at the same distance of separation as the garage switches when the truck is in the garage. The clocks are synchronized in their respective frames and the distance between switches are exactly identical between frames. Hence, all four clocks will trigger at the same instant as a single event regardless of any 'elapsed time' or dilation of any of the clocks.

    The driver and house owner are blind and "see" nothing, and as the printouts are in braille indicating to each, llater as the printouts are collected, that the switches were triggered simultaneously in each frame..

    We assume throughout here that the truck accelerated wrt the garage as demonstrated by accelerometers on the truck indicating truck acceleration activity, while the garage accelerometers showed no acceleration activity.

    So, what do you mean that the trucker "sees" the garage contracted, while the owner "sees" the truck contracted?

    What do the printouts tell you?

    In general, what is the mechanism where the owner and trucker "sees" contraction of the other, when it cannot be both ways? If no trucker or owner are present, what do the printouts tell you?

    Finally, does not the fact that the truck actually accelerated and was observed by meter sticks on the ground to have contracted, by both observers, negate the equivalence of inertial frames wrt SRT? Said another way, cannot the trucker know from previous unaccelerated observation that the garage, house and ground all attached to planet earth, are all not "acceleratable" - that such motion is physically impossible?

  17. #637
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by D H View Post
    Pot, meet kettle.
    I rarely make lengthy posts except when trying to respond to BS posted by those that do. i.e. - Billy T and James R primarily.


    Quote Originally Posted by D H View Post
    The American Institute of Physics has 125,000 members, and they all agree that relativity is one of the pinnacles of modern physics.
    I have no arguement with that but I do argue that they are swayed by both job security, funding issues, etc and many don't actually believe 100% of what they preach. I know this from personal experience and communication with several physicist NOT NPA members.

    I'll not judge what group you are in because it doesn't matter. What does matter is to understand that there are plenty of disenting scientist in the world and a lot of very questionable test results regarding SR.

    Quote Originally Posted by D H View Post
    Why is this thread here? There is no way to argue with crackpots. They are immune to logic and evidence.
    Since this doe not apply to me I'll make no further comment.

    You might however try responding to the issues raised with factual emperical falsification or logical physics arguements rather than rely on reciting what SR says.

    For example I would be interested just how you find my claim that relative velocity is computed as different (not symmetrical) by observers where one has accelerated away and the other remained at rest.

    You know the moving observer cannnot sense or measure any change in his clock tick rate nor a change in distance because his meter stick must also shrink.

    Therefore he knows he has gone 100 mile in 1 hour or must have gone 100Mpy while the resting observer say he too 2 hours and was going 50 Mph.

    Now deal with it.

    Last edited by MacM; 08-01-09 at 08:16 PM.

  18. #638
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,688
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ... So says Billy T even though he has no idea if energy is the same in all frames universally.
    No, everyone who accepts that physics is the same in all inertial frames says all atoms have the same energy levels and thus the same difference and the same radiation wave lengths emitted. In the case of hydrogen these levels can and have been calculated - with amazing (to ~10 significant figures, I think, agreement) to experiment via quantum mechanics. For your POV to be correct even that theory must change as the frame changes to keep this fantastic agreement between theory and experiment!
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...Now address the real issue I raise and that is Once A is back in Frame C it will have accumulated less time than C. This is not a matter of perception it is a matter of mutually recorded and displayed accumulated time on clocks now sitting side by side in a common rest frame.
    You are correct here. As while A was traveling it was time dilated. For example when C ticked a 1 million times, A only ticked 900,000 times so when back together the accumulator of A will have recorded 100,000 fewer ticks. - No mystery here. C and A will also disagree on how long A was gone. The traveling twin, brother A, comes back younger than "stay-at-home" brother C as A had less heart beats - Same old story.

    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...What B "Sees" is not and has never been at issue. But the fact that A has accumulated less time than C then it clearly had to have been tick dilated.
    I agree it is not a question of "seeing," "measuring," etc. It is reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...That means it had to slow down going to B.
    No, not by it co-traveling cesium clock. - Only wrt the tick rate of other clocks. It accumulated less time as by its clock as the round trip did not take as long by its clock, not as many ticks as clock C ticked while A was away.

    I am thru trying to convince you. You ignore math proof of inconsistency (post 198) by staying it is too long and complex. You falsifiy the scenatio of post 612 and both try to replace it with one which leave the critical slow one meter move on a table top out that forces you in case 2 to switch to a different “last past CRF" as that make the velocities inserted into SR( ) very different in case 1 from case 2. I.e. you throw the baby out with the bath water to avoid the embarssment that a 1meter move on a table top so slow it took 100 years drastically changes (by your version of SRand its CRFs) the resulting time dilation between two clock coasting in different frames for all eternity!

    And try other ways you try to “duck and weave” or just resort to name calling. You have done this for 5 years. It is not worth trying to change your POV – it is too rigid and wrong or at least in conflict with more than 1,000,000 much better educated people who have considered SR theory during the nearly 100 years it has been a standard part of most college level physics courses.
    I will however, continue to try to warn new comers, who seem intelligent that you are a crackpot holding a POV not supported by more than million better qualified people.

    I.e. my post was for phyti - and effort to make it less likely you will mislead him. If it will make you feel any better, I will admit I don't recall much of Laurence Transforms etc. or go into the math of even SR much now days.

    I just believe that Physic is the same in all frames, in part because astronomy looking at radiated spectral lines from distant stars tells us so. I.e. the hydrogen red or blue shift observed can be compared to the computed values to get the relative velocity wrt to Earth of the distant star and then ALL the other lines are shifted by this same Doppler shift formuala as they had unchanged / standard / same energy levels when radiated. Not one star is “remembering” that many million years ago it had acceleration by near miss with another star and thus a earlier “common rest frame” Etc.

    I also believe vacuum is vacuum, everywhere and that Maxwell's equations tell the speed of light (inverse root of product of vacuum magnetic permeability and dielectric constant, if memory serves me.) So speed of light in vacuum is the same everywhere. – Really, IMHO, this is just “Physics is the Same in all frames” again.

    All of SR follows from these two facts. (I actually think if all follows from just the "Physics is the same in all frames." as then speed of light is the same due to magnetic and dielectric properties of vacuum being frame independent, but smarter people* than me usually want both separately to say all of SR follows from just two facts)
    -----------------
    *Perhaps they are acknowledging that IF Maxwell's EM theory is wrong, then they need a separate /different / reason for speed of light to be constant or need to make it a postulate.
    Last edited by Billy T; 08-01-09 at 09:16 PM.

  19. #639
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    208
    To MacM;

    --One of the most useful tools for space travel scenarios is the space-time diagram.
    Unfortunately I can't upload a pic for unknown reason and can't link to a pic because of a silly rule about requiring 20 posts. So will use text.
    Velocity changes are instantaneous.

    Bob leaves Bill at time 0 with speed .2c.
    Bill sends signal (for one to change direction) at 8 days to Bob.
    Upon receiving signal , Bob time is 9.8 and Bill time is 10.

    If Bob changes speed to near c and rejoins Bill, Bill time is 12 and Bob time is 9.8+.

    If Bill changes speed to near c and rejoins Bob, Bill time is 10+ and Bob time is 12.3.

    The one that returns is the youngest. It's not just who accelerates, but who travels the farthest at high speeds

  20. #640
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    I just had a thought.

    Suppose you find (4) equally large objects (i.e. spiral gallaxies) that happen to form corners of a square.

    Now you are at rest in the center of the square.

    Suppose the distance apart is sufficiently large that your initial motion in the short term won't shift the orthogonal corners a sufficient amount to affect the scenario.

    Your craft has circular graduated windows. All (4) galaxies now fill the smallest graduation in the center of the (4) windows.

    Now you accelerate to a high relavistic velocity moving across the square going from one corner diagonally to the other corner.

    If distance contracts clearly the gallaxies in the foreground and background windows would change size with any contraction of distance and the ones in the orthogonal windows do not.

    Having knowledge of the magnitude of such apparent diameter change in the direction of motion vs the fixed diameters to the orthogonal vectors now gives you the ability to compute your absolute velocity relative to these objects if there is a differerntial in size.

    What do you claim those computations will show?

    1 - Your computations of velocity based on ultimate v = ds / dt will match the computed velocity required to cause the diameter change of gallaxies in the line of motion?

    2 - Your computed velocity is the same or different than observers in the (4) gallaxies?

    What conclusions about "Cause" & "Affect" might you gain from this test?

    Hmmmmm.
    Last edited by MacM; 08-01-09 at 08:50 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
  •