Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[James R]

If no preferred frames of reference exist then how is relative simultaneity determined?
In fact I would challenge any one to derive a relative simultaneous condition with out using an absolute reference or preferred reference frame to do it with.

See my post immediately previous to this one for an example.

Notice that neither frame is preferred in that example. They are just two relatively-moving frames.

[James R]

MacM:

In case you missed it, see post #778. Please respond.

As for other matters...

Shear double talk. non-inertial IS acceleration.

No. They are not the same. If you're sitting in an accelerating spaceship, then in your own frame you are not accelerating, yet you are still not in inertial motion.

A preferred frame is one which cannot be flip-flopped as in SR where either can claim to be at rest and the other has all moton.

There are no such frames.

[Quantum Quack]

Notice that neither frame is preferred in that example. They are just two relatively-moving frames.

and to state the above what frame are you implying and using? [ to make your observation that they are just two relatively moving frames?]

[Quantum Quack]

I am sure you have asked this question of yourself in the past and I wonder how you have reconciled it to fit the SRT paradigm?

[James R]

One addendum to post #378:

You might be interested in the speed that the fuse burns.

In the box's frame of reference, which is also the rest frame of the fuses, fuses A and B both burn at a rate of 1 metre per second.

In the ground frame, the speed of fuse B is:



or (0.6c + 0.64) metres per second.

The speed of fuse A is more complicated because in the ground frame it travels partly in the x direction and partly in the y direction. Suffice it for the moment to say that the speed of A turns out to be slightly faster than B in the ground frame.

[James R]

and to state the above what frame are you implying and using? [ to make your observation that they are just two relatively moving frames?]

There's the ground frame and the box frame. The box is moving relative to the ground. Or, the ground is moving relative to the box. It doesn't matter which.

And both the ground and the box might be moving relative to something else, like my giant pink ostrich called Wallace. It doesn't make any difference to the analysis.

See what I mean by no preferred frames?

[Quantum Quack]

There's the ground frame and the box frame. The box is moving relative to the ground. Or, the ground is moving relative to the box. It doesn't matter which.

And both the ground and the box might be moving relative to something else, like my giant pink ostrich called Wallace. It doesn't make any difference to the analysis.

See what I mean by no preferred frames?

Yes I do, but do you see mine?

[MacM]

Let's deal with MacM's TNT example properly. If I wait around for MacM to clarify the example, I'll wait forever.

Unncessary negative innuendo.

x = \gamma (x' + vt'), t = \gamma (t' + vx'/c^2)[/tex]

Note that since the box's motion is in the x direction, all y coordinates are unchanged.

We have:

Fuse A: (x',y',t') = (0,4,0) Fuse B: (x',y',t') = (0,0,0)
TNT A: (x',y',t') = (0,1,3) TNT B: (x',y',t') = (3,0,3)

Applying the transformations:

Fuse A: (x,y,t) = (0,4,0) Fuse B: (x,y,t) = (0,0,0)
TNT A: (x,y,t) = (675 000 000, 1, 3.75) TNT B: (675 000 003.8, 0, 3.750000008)

In the ground frame, therefore, the fuses are still lit simultaneously. But the explosions no longer occur simultaneously. TNT B explodes 0.000000008 seconds AFTER TNT A in the reference frame of the ground.

The large x coordinates for the explosions are mostly due to the motion of the box containing the TNT, which we recall is moving at 0.6c. In the ground frame, the x distance between the explosions is 3.8 metres, as compared to the 3 metres in the box frame. The "extra" 0.8 metres in the ground frame is partly due to the fact that TNT B expodes later than TNT A, so that TNT B moves a little further to the right before the lit fuse reaches it. Another contribution to the "extra" distance is the length contraction of fuse B in the direction of motion, which actually reduces that "extra" distance a bit. Both effects are accounted for in the Lorentz transformations.

The important point here is that although the fuses were lit simultaneously in both frames, the explosions are simultaneous in the reference frame of the box but they are not simultaneous in the reference frame of the ground (A occurs before B).

This is the complete analysis requested by MacM. It is now up to MacM to present his own alternative analysis, with the same mathematical detail I have presented.

Your analysis is just fine. It shows that physics are not the same in all frames of reference and hence lorentz contraction cannot be physically real. TNT cannot detonate side by side simultaneous yet detonate at different times as an observer perception.

It is ONLY a perception and not the physical reality.

Case won for MacM.

[Quantum Quack]

Your analysis is just fine. It shows that physics are not the same in all frames of reference and hence lorentz contraction cannot be physically real. TNT cannot detonate side by side simultaneous yet detonate at different times as an observer perception.

so.....
Do the observers die simultaneously from the TNT blasts or is one hanging around to watch his own death later? hee hee

[MacM]

MacM:

In case you missed it, see post #378. Please respond.

As for other matters...



No. They are not the same. If you're sitting in an accelerating spaceship, then in your own frame you are not accelerating, yet you are still not in inertial motion.

Double talk. You have an accelerating force. You are accelerating. And you can know you are accelerating because you have acceleraometers alloong the length of your craft that show the force isconstasntv and i=not gravity which woudl be inverse square inspite of another of Einstien's bright ideas called EEP

There are no such frames.

You saying so does not make it so. The GPS ECI frame is a preferred frame. - PERIOD. You cannot flip it around and claim the orbiting clock is at rest. That is a Lorentz Relativty preferred frame. - NO RECIPROCITY is a preferred frame.

Listen and learn.

[MacM]

There's the ground frame and the box frame. The box is moving relative to the ground. Or, the ground is moving relative to the box. It doesn't matter which.

And both the ground and the box might be moving relative to something else, like my giant pink ostrich called Wallace. It doesn't make any difference to the analysis.

See what I mean by no preferred frames?

All this actually makes a big difference. TNT in each frame "Actually" detonates simultaneously, the oposing frame view (Perception) is just that an illusion of motion.

Keeping the TNT in a bomb proof bos and having each stick detonate stopping seperate clocks on board that were started with ignition will proves the physical reality was they detonated the same time and hence there was no physical length contraction.

[MacM]

so.....
Do the observers die simultaneously from the TNT blasts or is one hanging around to watch his own death later? hee hee

I wisely put James R and Billy T in the monitors seats for this one. -

[Billy T]

...There are only two (2) clocks.
They are synchronized to eliminate that factor as a cause for any
difference seen when they are reunited.

I think you mean both at set to zero accunulated time at the start (on any equal value, such as 100,000 seconds) They cannot be "synchronized" in any other sense if time dilation does exist, so in future, please avoid speaking of the false concept of clocks in different frames a "synchronized" if you agree on this point.

...The only reading of concern is when reunited.
SR states that the A-clock will read less time than the E-clock.

Yes & yes.

...If {1} the clocks always run at the same rate, regardless of how far they
travel, {2 then} when reunited they should read the same.

{1} is not fully stated, so is ambiguous. All good clocks run at the same rate IN THEIR OWN OR REST FRAME. This follows in the case of a cesium atomic clock as it counts cycles of the cesium line radiation and that depends only of the energy difference between the upper and lower energy levels of the radiative transition to the lower level. If physic is the same in all inertial frame, then counting fixed # of cycles will define the SAME second for all inertial frames.

In contrast, all good clocks rung at different rates in different frames. Or more correctly stated, when a 100 seconds period* of one frame is described in terms of the seconds of another frame it is found that MORE seconds are in the corresponding period* of the fame considered not to be moving. There is complete symmetry or reciprocity in this, but not if one frame breaks the symmetry by a period of acceleration as is necessary for the clocks to be brought bat together at the end of some period.

Thus {2} does not follow from {1} as you suppose for the case where one clock breaks the symmetry.

...The question is still: if the A-clock physically shows a reading less than the E-clock, what is the reason?

In simple terms, all the while that it was inertially moving every 100 ticks it accumulated correspond to more than 100 ticks in the stationary frame (the one that never had any acceleration)

*Now if neither frame has any acceleration each frames claims the other did not accumulate for as long a period as their clock did. They can either be side by side at the start of the period and agree that both started their accumulators "at the same time" OR by planning and pre-arrangement finish the accumulation period at the same location, side-by-side and agree both stopped the accumulation at the same time, BUT NOT BOTH. I do not want to get into the discussion that both the "start accumulation event" and the "stop accumulation event" can be simultaneous for both frames - it cannot be. You can find this discussion in the literature.

Some years ago I had a thread with two small bombs mounted on the side of train, one on the engine and one on the last car, that for the train exploded simultaneously as they were triggered by a flash of light also mounted on the side of the train exactly half way between the bombs. Likewise two bombs were mounted on poles the same distance apart beside the train tracks and mid-way between them was the electric contact wire that flashed the light mounted on the train when it, as it passed the wire. For the ground observer his two bombs exploded simultaneously but not the train's bombs as the last car's bomb was rushing forward to meet the oncoming light flash and the engine mounted bomb was trying to race ahead of the on-coming light flash.

For neither train nor ground reality did the other's bomb explode simultaneously but their own did. [b]That is the counter intuitive way it always is: if events "A" and "B" are simultaneous (or separated by 100 seconds etc.) in one frame they are not simultaneous in any other frame (or separated by 100 seconds.) Summary: the start and stop accumulations in stationary frame are not simultaneous (or separated by 100 seconds etc.) in both frames the moving frame and "not moving" frame (which could be the train if you like or are on it). Only the "start" or the "stop" accumulations can be simultaneous. Each frame can correctly in the terms point out the if the other's accumulator shows the same count as their own does it is because the other accumulated his slower ticking clock too long (Start accumulation early of stopped accumulation too late.)

I am sorry but that is all I have to say, will not discuss further** on the fact only one pair of events, one in each frame can be "simultaneous" not two and accumulation of ticks requires two (start & stop) to be simultaneous.

----------
**I only repeated this much of old posts as you are new and seem sincere, open minded, still.

PS after posting by edit:
I see QQ has actively returned. I recommend you seek knowledge about SR at any college or by reading any physics book, but not here as I will join the many others who know SR well and have already ceased tpo post here. I.e. I will not post more here.

Let lets QQ and MacM have the thread to themselves now to path each other on the back, except when QQ insists it is the acceleration that makes the “physics difference” and MacM refutes that by saying acceleration make "real velocity" (instead of “illusionary velocity”) and it is the “real velocity” that makes the "physical change" in the frame moving wrt the CRF, not the acceleration directly.

[Quantum Quack]

It is funny how as soon as they can't answer a question they claim superior knowledge.....hmmmmm....and whats more refuse to support that claim with sound logic and reasoning...

[James R]

MacM:

We have nothing to discuss. You admit that my analysis of the TNT example is correct, so we're done.

You have presented nothing to suggest that there is any error in the relativistic analysis of that example, and you have no altenative analysis of your own.

Goodbye.

[MacM]

It is funny how as soon as they can't answer a question they claim superior knowledge.....hmmmmm....and whats more refuse to support that claim with sound logic and reasoning...

You make a quick study QQ -

[MacM]

MacM:

We have nothing to discuss. You admit that my analysis of the TNT example is correct, so we're done.

You have presented nothing to suggest that there is any error in the relativistic analysis of that example, and you have no altenative analysis of your own.

Goodbye.

I accepted your analysis without verification of your mathematical conclusion, only because it demonstrates the very purpose of the post.

That is it is a physical impossibility for Lorentz Contraction to function as a real physical affect as you claimed. Lorentz Contraction is relinquished to the status of being an artifiact of a poorely constructed physical theory and failure to recognize the most simple basis of physics.

1 - That observer perception is NOT a physical cause.

2 - Relative Velocity between clocks is not a physical cause.

3 - ONLY actual velocity induced by acceleration of a clock to an inertial rest frame is demonstrated by emperical data to cause time dilation.

4 - Where two clocks have relative motion but each has moved "Switched Frames" since having had a commmon rest frame, the only correct time dilation is computed by the difference of each clocks time dilation to the common rest frame and not by computing time dilation between clocks.

5 - Intelligent, educated men would NOT assume distance contracted from relative velocity. They can ONLY compute a higher velocity since the only data they have at hand is distance as measured by both observers being equal and clocks recording trip time from each frame being different. v = ds / dt.

In the accelerated frame the ONLY rational choice is to conclude a higher velocity not that distance forshortened.

For any and all onlookers be it known that James R has thrown in the towel without having posted emperical data to support his arguement that lorentz contraction is physically real. or that the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity view is physiclly real, or that the ECI frame as are frames of observers that have accelerated are not preferred frames.

All James R has done is recite theory.

a - Swearing "There are no preferred frames" - Inspite of the fact that GPS uses just such a frame, the ECI frame and that when they claim to be doing Special Relativity and compute timed dilation after considering "Frame Switching" they have in fact stipulated that ONE observer has actual velocity and ignore the resting observer's relative velocity in their calculations.

That is establishing a preferred frame where ONE has velocity and the other does not. This is Lorentz Relativity NOT Einstein's Relativity which includes reciprocity. But they sure want credit for it for Einstein.

b - Swearing "There are no absolute velocites only relative velocity" when in fact any velocity which cannot be switched to rest as advocated in Special Relativity is a preferred frame with an absolute velocity. That velocity is ONLY relative to the rest frame. Mere "Relative Velocity" that it creates to all other objects in the universe are not absolute but merely relative.

In contrast I do believe I have given sufficient cause for you to question highly any who advocate SR is a valid theory.

c - Swearing that "Lorentz Contraction is a real physical process" in spite of the fact there is no permanent change once relative velocity has vanished. Nor any emperical data to support the assertion it occurs.

d - Swearing that "Time Dilation is a real process" which it likely is BUT:

e - Swearing that these "Physical Affects are subject to observer perception". A non-existant cause such as mere relative velocity makes physical changes that in one frame is time dilation and in another frame is length contraction all as a matter of who is watching.

Have you EVER heard of such nonsense in describing anything physically real?

Reciprocity has NEVER been tested and appears UNTESTABLE.

That by scientific standards falsifies Special Relativity as a valid theory.

Until they test the theory and produce even ONE piece of emperical data demonstrating reciprocity of time dilation, or at least specifiy a reasonable method to test the theory's advocated reciprocity showing it to be physically real, it cannot even be accepted as science.

To clarify the issue beyond dispute change the TNT sticks to fire crackers and have a control system that if the detonations are NOT simultaneous then control systems in each frame fire a shot gun that will kill the observer in the frame where detonaton was NOT simultaneous.

Now in one frame the observer gets killed but in the other he survies. - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Something physically wrong with such a conclusion. Must be that one of these is not physical reality but only perception since both cannot be physically real.

Keep in mind that what testing has been done and emperical data from such testing actually ONLY supports Lorentz Relativity and not Einstein's relativity.

[James R]

I'll limit myself to correcting MacM's factual errors from now on.

I would like to point out, however, that in saying that my analysis was correct MacM has conceded that length contraction is, at the very least, an "illusion of motion", even though he has been claiming it does not occur at all.

All James R has done is recite theory.

a - Swearing "There are no preferred frames" - Inspite of the fact that GPS uses just such a frame...

The GPS system does not require use of a "preferred frame". The frames it does use are a matter of convenience only. They make the calculations easier. Compare the use of an inertial frame to a non-inertial one in just about any problem.

b - Swearing "There are no absolute velocites only relative velocity" when in fact any velocity which cannot be switched to rest as advocated in Special Relativity is a preferred frame with an absolute velocity.

Any single frames in special relativity can be considered to be "at rest". Frames moving relative to that frame are then "moving frames". There are no preferred frames.

To clarify the issue beyond dispute change the TNT sticks to fire crackers and have a control system that if the detonations are NOT simultaneous then control systems in each frame fire a shot gun that will kill the observer in the frame where detonaton was NOT simultaneous.

Now in one frame the observer gets killed but in the other he survies. - Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Something physically wrong with such a conclusion.

As I pointed out earlier, it is impossible to set up a system in which the person is killed in one frame but not in others. Events in spacetime that happen must happen in all frames.

I note that MacM CANNOT specify the details of any system that would have the observer killed in one frame but not in another (using the theory of relativity). I leave it as a challenge for MacM to do so within the bounds of the theory of relativity, with the level of mathematical detail equivalent to what I provided in post #778 above. If MacM can convincingly demonstrate such a system mathematically using accepted physics (i.e. only special relativity - no MacM fantasyphysics allowed), I will concede that special relativity is dead and proclaim the truth of UniKEF nonsense for the rest of my time on sciforums. To avoid any perception of bias, I will require that the correctness of MacM's special relativistic analysis be independently verified by at least 2 other posters who believe that SR is a correct theory and who have appropriate knowledge or qualifications with regard to that theory.

[James R]

----------------
Cranks have these virtually universal characteristics:

1. Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
2. Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
3. Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
4. Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else’s experience or opinions.
5. No discernible sense of humour.

In addition, many cranks

1. seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,
2. stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
3. compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus, implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,
4. claim that their ideas are being suppressed by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their allegedly revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
5. appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, almost always

1. exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,
2. misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,
3. ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understanding mainstream belief.
-----------------

Acknowledgments:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...comment-141464

Note: this comment was originally applied to the poster OilIsMastery, who has been banned from sciforums, but it sounds a lot like MacM too, don't you think?

[MacM]

I'll limit myself to correcting MacM's factual errors from now on.

Well that certainly should shorten up your diatribe off topic and irrelevant posts.

I would like to point out, however, that in saying that my analysis was correct MacM has conceded that length contraction is, at the very least, an "illusion of motion", even though he has been claiming it does not occur at all.

I thought you were going to "Correct" MacM's factual errors. I have always contended Lorentz Contraction exists but only as an "Illusion of Motion". Wherever have you EVER seen me claim such illusion doesn't occur?

You have not. I have contended LC exists as an illusion for years and that has nothing to do with your post or conceeding anything. It has been my position all along.

In fact I have in the past believed that LC of mass was real but spatial contraction was not, this scenario suggest LC does not exist as a physical reality - Period.

The GPS system does not require use of a "preferred frame". The frames it does use are a matter of convenience only. They make the calculations easier.

Sorry this is BS. Go ahead show us just what frame you would use that is an SR frame where the orbiting clock could claim to be at rest. We are waiting.

Compare the use of an inertial frame to a non-inertial one in just about any problem.

Are you suggesting that orbit is non-inertial in your opinion? Because in the past you have alleged that orbit means constant acceleration and is hence non-inertial. But you have deliberately failed to respond to the issue of free-fall. Acceleration during free-fall IS considered inertial and orbit is a form of free-fall.

The simple fact is there is not a unified view of this issue in modern physics.

Any single frames in special relativity can be considered to be "at rest". Frames moving relative to that frame are then "moving frames". There are no preferred frames.

Which is why Special Relativity fails the laugh test and which is why you apply the "Frame Switching" standard to actual application of the Lorentz formulas since that forms a Lorentz preferred frame view without the reciprocity which is inherent in the relative velocity view that stipulates impossible physical conditions.

As I pointed out earlier, it is impossible to set up a system in which the person is killed in one frame but not in others. Events in spacetime that happen must happen in all frames.

Correct which is why I have shown SR to be false. Your statement doesn't include a resolution for the fact that given a control mechanisim that pulls the trigger if detonation is not simultaneous MUST kill the observer in one frame and not the other.

I think you need to spend some time on this one. You correctly state that it is inconsistant that the observer be killed in one frame and not the other but your own calculations dictate that will happen if you insist that lorentz contraction is a physical reality.

I note that MacM CANNOT specify the details of any system that would have the observer killed in one frame but not in another (using the theory of relativity).

???? I just did. If the detonations are not simultaneous the control pulls the trigger. You have admitted that the detonations according to SR are simultaneous in one frame but not the other.

Now stop saying it can't happen and I can't show it when I have shown it by your own admission.

I leave it as a challenge for MacM to do so within the bounds of the theory of relativity, with the level of mathematical detail equivalent to what I provided in post #778 above. If MacM can convincingly demonstrate such a system mathematically using accepted physics (i.e. only special relativity - no MacM fantasyphysics allowed), I will concede that special relativity is dead and proclaim the truth of UniKEF nonsense for the rest of my time on sciforums.

1 - This has nothing to do with UniKEF. Not sure why you bring it up.

2 - Why would you think any calculations would differ from your own?

3 - Why do you not recognize that according to your own calculations the detonations are simultaneosu in one frame but not another and that by stipulation kills the observer in one frame and not the other.

I see no reason to bother further. The shoe is on your foot.

To avoid any perception of bias, I will require that the correctness of MacM's special relativistic analysis be independently verified by at least 2 other posters who believe that SR is a correct theory and who have appropriate knowledge or qualifications with regard to that theory.

How about getting your buddies to confirm your calculatons and agree that according to SR such detonations will trigger the shotgun in one frame but not the other.

Interesting that I can post scenarios without all your mathematics which are functionally correct and yet according to you I don't understand relativity. Hmmmmmm.