Thread: Mac's Final Relativity Thread

  1. #1061
    On the subject of postulates, they aren't really stated without proof. The postulates of special relativity came from Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism that predicted that electromagnetic waves move at a speed c. If they go at that speed then they must necessarily go at c relative to something. Early attempts assumed there was an ether. Special relativity stated that they must go at c relative to any observer. It turned out special relativity was right, as shown by experiment.

  2. #1062
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I, and 100,000 people better educated in physics than you during the last 100 years do.
    Appeal to authority means nothing. Perhaps you might explain why all these super smart guys; plus you and James R haven't figured out that if you go half the distance, in half the time, at the same velocity, the clock tick rate does not change.

    That that means without question both the resting clock and traveling clock tick in sync and hence no time dilation would be possible since the traveling twin returns home and the resting clock would then agree on the time accumulated.

    The real physics answer in such a case would be the resting observer would have to compute and conclude that he cheated and went twice as fast.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    ALL logic has some set of postulates as its foundation. (Thus you are illogical without any.) One can never prove they are true, but one can test the hell out of them looking for some contradiction. The two foundation postulates of SR have been tested thousands of times (zillions of times by accident as Earth's orbit about the sun is constantly changing it velocity thru space yet the values in physics handbooks have shown zero periodic change with a 365 day period.)
    This has nothing to do with the issue. Even if the postulates were true (and they likely aren't) then the conclusions are clearly false. There are no options to ignore the fact that going 1/2 the distance and accumulating 1/2 the time means NO time dilation and both clock therefore accumulate the saem amount of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    In contrast MacM's SR is not even internally self consistent as shown in several prior posts (118, 198 and others I may add by edit).
    Funny I haven't present any SR. I have only shown that the current SR is falsified. I have also shown that only the accelerated frame ever permanently dilates. I have shown that spatial contraction does not exist and that ONLY clock time dilation matches em[irical data.

    You and James R on the other hand have anc can only recite theory and ignore the physical consequences that I have properly presented.

    Now if you disagree please explain just how going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity means there has been any time dilation or change in clock tick rates compared to the resting frame.

    Go ahead wise guy your up. It takes a bit more than "That is what SR claims" because we know what SR claims and "I" know it isn't so.

    Only dumb asses fail to understand such simple basic relationships as 60 Mph for 2 hours = 120 miles and 60 Mph for 1 hour = 60 miles and my clock has been unaffected in terms of tick rate. There is No dilation just because the distance changed and I accumulated less time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Furthermore as SR's strange effects, such as SR computed contraction, Which MacM's SR claims are false, follow mathematically from these two very well confirmed postulates. MacM with no* basis assert that at least one of these two well confirmed postulates is false.
    Again one zillion correct answers are completely falsified by ONE failure and SR is shown to fail. The failure is your interpretation of the data. Less accumulated time on a clock is not due to time dilation but is due less distance traveled and that would mean all clocks tick in sync in all frames. Since that is untrue then spatial contraction is untrue.

    If clocks tick dilate once accelerated then the lesser accumulated time matches empirical data but there is NO spatial contraction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    *Perhaps it is more accurate to say MacM has a basis for claiming the speed of light is not constant, but his basis itself is false. MacM falsely claims speed of photon climbing out of gravity field well slows; instead of correctly knowing that its energy is decreased by the red shift.**(See MacM's post below)

    FYI: That is not my basis for rejecting the invariance postulate. Invariance is an illusion caused by a misunderstanding about light propagation. I need not repeat that here.

    But you are corrrect in tht Einstein said invariance can only be assumed where there is no gravity field (which is no cubic inch of the universe. He also said SR can still be applied IF gravity is sufficiently weak so as to be ignored.

    Being ignored and not existing are two different issues.





    **Not only has gravitational red shift been observed, but if the speed did decrease as MacM claims, then there would be a blue shift. But that is not unusual for MacM - he often has things exactly backwards.

    To see MacM's slowing implies a blue shift, note speed of wave (even a water wave), S = L/P where L is the wave length & P is the oscillation period. If S is to decrease to only s, as MacM claims, then L must decrease if P duration of a cycle does not increase. But a shorter wavelength is a higher frequency or "blue shift", not the observed red shift. MacM rejects the correct red shift or longer period. Once again MacM's is predicting the opposite of what is observed fact!

    Rejecting a longer period with a slowed down wave is correct and exactly what hapens as light slows down when passing thru glass, but the period (and frequency and energy) does not change. I.e. The space between peaks or waveleng this compressed while photon is inside the glass but this does not happen when photon is leaving a gravity field. Then it must lose energy (red shift or decrease frequency) so that the total energy is conserved. The compression of wave length is very obvious / easy to understand / if you consider the photon when front half is inside the glass not advancing as fast as the trailing part still in the air. - like a long line of toops marching with the front part slowed down by a muddy field. The space between the soldiers (or peaks of waves) decreases as they enter the mud (or the glass).

    SUMMARY: I and >100,000 others prefer the standard SR as it is based on well confirmed postulates. We do not accept MacM's alternative has no confirmed postulates, is self contradictory and is based on (or makes) contra-factual assumptions, such as that the speed of light (instead of its energy) drops as photon climbs out of a gravitational well.

    Here is the choice between two theories, One has:

    (1) Has confirmed postulates - is self consistent - has predictions confirmed
    AND other has:
    (2)No postulates even stated*** - is self-contradictory - makes false predicitons

    ***Without postulated foundation, there is NO logic possible - only MacM's opinions server as the foundation.

    PS Ican save MacM the trouble of responding by making his typical counter argument to logic and experimantal facts. Here it is:

    "That is BS, you ass hole. I have shown you are false and you can not offer any empirical support for your POV. Now respond to my drawings. You can can you. That proves you don't have the slightest idea about physics. You just repeat the same old SR story without any thought."
    ************************************************** ******


    Originally Posted by MacM
    ...Who in the hell wants SR postulates? Not me..

    I, and 100,000 people better educated in physics than you during the last 100 years do.

    ALL logic has some set of postulates as its foundation. (Thus you are illogical without any.) One can never prove they are true, but one can test the hell out of them looking for some contradiction. The two foundation postulates of SR have been tested thousands of times (zillions of times by accident as Earth's orbit about the sun is constantly changing it velocity thru space yet the values in physics handbooks have shown zero periodic change with a 365 day period.)

    In contrast MacM's SR is not even internally self consistent as shown in several prior posts (118, 198 and others I may add by edit). Furthermore as SR's strange effects, such as SR computed contraction, Which MacM's SR claims are false, follow mathematically from these two very well confirmed postulates. MacM with no* basis assert that at least one of these two well confirmed postulates is false.

    ----------------
    *Perhaps it is more accurate to say MacM has a basis for claiming the speed of light is not constant, but his basis itself is false. MacM falsely claims speed of photon climbing out of gravity field well slows; instead of correctly knowing that its energy is decreased by the red shift.**(See MacM's post below)


    Originally Posted by MacM
    {post 997}... the constancy of light is:
    1 - Not actually invariant except in absent of a gravitational field; which excludes every cubic inch of the universe.
    2 - I have clearly stated I believe the invariance that has been measured is a matter of an illusion. ...

    **Not only has gravitational red shift been observed, but if the speed did decrease as MacM claims, then there would be a blue shift. But that is not unusual for MacM - he often has things exactly backwards.

    To see MacM's slowing implies a blue shift, note speed of wave (even a water wave), S = L/P where L is the wave length & P is the oscillation period. If S is to decrease to only s, as MacM claims, then L must decrease if P duration of a cycle does not increase. But a shorter wavelength is a higher frequency or "blue shift", not the observed red shift. MacM rejects the correct red shift or longer period. Once again MacM's is predicting the opposite of what is observed fact!

    Rejecting a longer period with a slowed down wave is correct and exactly what hapens as light slows down when passing thru glass, but the period (and frequency and energy) does not change. I.e. The space between peaks or waveleng this compressed while photon is inside the glass but this does not happen when photon is leaving a gravity field. Then it must lose energy (red shift or decrease frequency) so that the total energy is conserved. The compression of wave length is very obvious / easy to understand / if you consider the photon when front half is inside the glass not advancing as fast as the trailing part still in the air. - like a long line of toops marching with the front part slowed down by a muddy field. The space between the soldiers (or peaks of waves) decreases as they enter the mud (or the glass).

    SUMMARYI and >100,000 others prefer the standard SR as it is based on well confirmed postulates. We do not accept MacM's alternative has no confirmed postulates, is self contradictory and is based on (or makes) contra-factual assumptions, such as that the speed of light (instead of its energy) drops as photon climbs out of a gravitational well.

    Here is the choice between two theories, One has:

    (1) Has confirmed postulates - is self consistent - has predictions confirmed
    AND other has:
    (2)No postulates even stated*** - is self-contradictory - makes false predicitons

    ***Without postulated foundation, there is NO logic possible - only MacM's opinions server as the foundation.

  3. #1063
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    On the subject of postulates, they aren't really stated without proof. The postulates of special relativity came from Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism that predicted that electromagnetic waves move at a speed c. If they go at that speed then they must necessarily go at c relative to something. Early attempts assumed there was an ether. Special relativity stated that they must go at c relative to any observer. It turned out special relativity was right, as shown by experiment.
    I would flex only to the point of saying with evidence but there has been no proof.

    Further the evidence is being mis-interpreted. You are reciting theory and I am presenting physical reality.

    The reality is that if you go 1/2 the diatance, in 1/2 the amount of accumulated time, at the same velocity, then your clock tick rate has not changed.

    Which would mean that your traveling clock and thec restingv clock have accumulated the same amount of time upon your return such that time diltion would not have occured.

    Since time dilation is an empirically demonstrated function spatial length contraction according to SR is falsified.

    The empircal data is ONLY supported if clocks physical dilate upon being accelerted into another frame and if distance remains fixed.

  4. #1064
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    You are reciting theory and I am presenting physical reality.
    Classic crackpot call-sign. What about the many experimental verifications of special (and general, which includes SR) relativity that have been done over the years? You claim to be presenting reality. That may be true in your own world but it's not for the sane amongst us.

  5. #1065
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,943
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...The reality is that if you go 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the amount of accumulated time, at the same velocity, then your clock tick rate has not changed.
    That is true, even without your "if..." because ALL good clocks always tick at the same rate in their own frames.

    Atomic clocks do so as they all count # of cycles of atomic radiation to advance a second and that radiation cycle period is the same in all inertial frames as physics is the same in all inertial frames. (That radiation can even be determined from quantum theory, which certainly does not change with speed of the frame.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ...Which would mean that your traveling clock and the resting clock have accumulated the same amount of time upon your return such that time dilation would not have occurred.
    This does not logically follow, and is not even true. The resting clock accumulates twice as much time as the traveling clock in this case.

    Both clocks are separating from the other with the same speed. The resting clock observers know that the moving clock was traveling with that speed for the FULL (uncontracted) distance, D = 2d, where d is the contracted distance the moving clock traveled.

    The time accumulated by moving clock, t, traveling d is: t = d/c
    The time accumulated by resting clock, T, while in resting frame, the moving clock travels D is: T = D/c = 2t

    After your error, the rest of your post is false.
    Last edited by Billy T; 09-04-09 at 08:33 PM.

  6. #1066
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,943
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ... (1) Funny I haven't present any SR. (2) I have only shown that the current SR is falsified. ...
    Both sentences (1) & (2) are false.
    (1) Here is where you presented much of your version of SR:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=93

    There you tell how time dilation of clock A wrt clock B must be calculated . (A quick summary: Both dilations must be computed using clock speeds separately wrt to their "common rest frame" and then subtracted.)

    (2) You have only used false logic and or false assumptions to think you have falsified SR. If you had falsified SR, not only would you have the Noble Prize but your proof and your photo would be front page news on most of the world's newspapers, your front yard would be full of reporters, some offering at least $10,000 for an exclusive interview. etc.’ Are you now delusional?

    I’ll check my paper and turn on my TV now expecting to see story about your historic correction of 100 years of physics.

  7. #1067
    MacM:

    Here's what I said:

    Quote Originally Posted by James R
    For the same trip, one clock ticks off half the time of the other. That means one is ticking at half the rate of the other.
    Now, let me break it down for you into baby-sized pieces.

    By "same trip" I mean that we're talking about the same person in the same spaceship going from the same point A to the same point B and back to A again.

    Crucially, the "resting" observer says the distance between points A and B is twice the distance that the "travelling" observer says it is. Also crucial is the fact that if the resting observer measures the traveller as travelling as velocity v, then the travelling observer measures the resting observer as travelling at velocity -v.

    Say the distance between A and B is 100 kilometres according to the "resting" observer and the traveller's speed is 100 kilometres per hour. Then, the resting observer will measure the round-trip time to be 2 hours. The travelling observer says the distance between A and B is 50 km, and points A and B travel at 100 km/hr in the travelling observer's frame of reference. The round-trip time in this case will be 1 hour.

    When the two observers get back together and compare clocks, they find that for the SAME TRIP (i.e. round-trip from A to B to A), the resting observer's clock has ticked off 2 hours, while the travelling observer's clock has ticked off 1 hour.

    The "total accumulated times" on the two clocks are NOT the same. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that the two clocks ticked at the same rate.

    Is that simple enough for you?

  8. #1068
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by prometheus View Post
    Classic crackpot call-sign. What about the many experimental verifications of special (and general, which includes SR) relativity that have been done over the years? You claim to be presenting reality. That may be true in your own world but it's not for the sane amongst us.
    1 - Since you are relatively new here I'll give you one cordial pass on the negative innuendo (Crackpot comment) after that I'll call you what you deserve. Otherwise we can have an interesting in depth discussion.

    2 - Now as to experiments. Yes many experiments verify a Lorentz Relativity function but Einstein's Special Relativity is not fully supported.

    One half of Einstein's SR is in full agreement with Lorentz Formulas.

    3 - A zillion correct results are voided by only one failure.

    The diagrams I have posted are simple and prove spatial contraction does not exist. It does not matter that AE has formulated a closed mathematical system which appear to work and has fantastic utility, it just is NOT the physical reality and is only valid when applied correctly.

    To have a discussion you need to learn that merely reciting the theory does not prove the theory.

    For now I leave it up to you to show any error in my diagrams. You need to explain how the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the time, at the same relative velocity allows the resting clock to reach 8 hours since both clocks must be ticking in sync.

    For example 60 Mph for 2 hours = 120 miles. 60 Mph for 1 hour = 60 miles. That requires (or allows) no clock time dilation. Look over my diagrams and then comment.
    Last edited by MacM; 09-04-09 at 08:26 PM.

  9. #1069
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,943
    To James R:

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    ...
    The "total accumulated times" on the two clocks are NOT the same. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that the two clocks ticked at the same rate.
    We agree completely and this post of yours is exactly what I said both in post 1065 and earlier several times with text and graph below:

    ____________________________________________ D

    ______________________ d

    However, MacM is likely to take your "it is IMPOSSIBLE that the two clocks ticked at the same rate" as contrary to my "Good clocks always tick at the same rate in their own frames." Often I continue on to note that atomic clocks advance a second after counting # of cycles of an atomic radiation frequency. That frequency can in princilple be computed with Quantum Theory, which certainaly does not change with speed , etc.

    You need to add to your text a few words to make it impossible for MacM to twist your intent. I.e. make it read: "it is IMPOSSIBLE that the clocks in two different frames ticked at the same rate" (or words to that effect of your own choice.)
    Last edited by Billy T; 09-04-09 at 08:29 PM.

  10. #1070
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    That is true, even without your "if..." because ALL good clocks always tick at the same rate in their own frames.
    That is not what I said. DO NOT try to put words in my mouth. "....in their own frame..." is nothing but a confusion cop out. What I said and meant was if spatial contradction were physically real then ALL clocks tick in sync in ALL frames.

    Since that appears to be in error then spatial contraction is demonstrated as being false.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Atomic clocks do so as they all count # of cycles of atomic radiation to advance a second and that radiation cycle period is the same in all inertial frames as physics is the same in all inertial frames. (That radiation can even be determined from quantum theory, which certainly does not change with speed of the frame.)
    You seem to forget that if time dilation is real and it appears to be so then for all good clocks to tick the same "IN THEIR FRAME" the comparative frequency of the atom must dilate in synch with the dilated clock such that frequency in that frame is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    This does not logically follow, and is not even true. The resting clock accumulates twice as much time as the traveling clock in this case.
    Really please post your diagram. Be sure to include actual markers for distance and time. State what is dilated and what is contracted in your version of relativity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Both clocks are separating from the other with the same speed. The resting clock observers know that the moving clock was traveling with that speed for the FULL (uncontracted) distance, D = 2d, where d is the distance the contracted moving clock traveled.

    The time accumulated by moving clock, t, traveling d is: t = d/c
    The time accumulated by resting clock, T, while in resting frame, the moving clock travels D is: T = D/c = 2t
    Sorry your diatraibe above is nothing but verbal mathematical BS and does not work on close inspection.

    I repeat stop with the verbal descriptions and ost a diagram.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    After your error, the rest of your post is false.
    Sorry Billy T yuor assertion that I have made an error does not carry any weight. You must post yourc diagram showing the error.

    Go ahead. James R finally posted his. You afraid you can't support your accusations?

    I suspect that is the case.

  11. #1071
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Both sentences (1) & (2) are false.
    (1) Here is where you presented much of your version of SR:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=93

    There you tell how time dilation of clock A wrt clock B must be calculated . (A quick summary: Both dilations must be computed using clock speeds separately wrt to their "common rest frame" and then subtracted.)
    Correct. I show the falicy of claiming relative veloicty is a cause of physical change. That IS NOT a SR theory it is picking apart the errors of your SR.

    MacM has no substitute theory.

    If you disagree with my post showing that ALL actual physical time dilation calculations must be done to a comon rest frame then please post emperical data supporting reciprocity. Otherwise shut the hell up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    (2) You have only used false logic and or false assumptions to think you have falsified SR. If you had falsified SR, not only would you have the Noble Prize but your proof and your photo would be front page news on most of the world's newspapers, your front yard would be full of reporters, some offering at least $10,000 for an exclusive interview. etc.’ Are you now delusional?
    None of this garbage rebutts anything I have presented. If you can show any error in my conclusions please post proof. Reciting theory is NOT proof.
    Post emperical data.

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I’ll check my paper and turn on my TV now expecting to see story about your historic correction of 100 years of physics.
    Laugh all you want but I am not and have not sought anything. But I do find it amusing that purportedly educated ;eople can be so absoluely dense and awed byEinstein that they forfeit their own bility to think for themselves.

    Now when you are done posting your unsupported garbage and negative innuendo post your diagram showing distance and time for each twin.

  12. #1072
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,943
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    ... Really please post your diagram. Be sure to include actual markers for distance and time. State what is dilated and what is contracted in your version of relativity.
    I already have, six times now, except I never added the identical, uniformly spaced, "time rulers" as James did in post 1051. I just showed what is the only difference between the resting and traveling twin’s frames. I.e. for the SIXTH TIME NOW:

    ______________________________________ D
    VS.
    _____________________d (for the traveler's frame measuring the distance between start and turn back points FIXED IN THE NON-TRAVLERS FRAME)

    Jame's post 1051 is exactly what mine would be if I were to add these identically spaced (because all clocks tick at the same rate in their own frames) "time rulers"

    For probably the 15th time:
    There is no contraction or time dilation in either frame. (Hence no need of any "physical cause.") These SR effects are due ENTIRELY to DESCRIBING events etc. of one frame in terms of / with the units of / another frame (i.e. with the meter sticks and clocks of some frame other than the frame in which the described events are taking place.)

    You are so dense that I even made following analogy for you:
    The short armed King of France ordered 100 yards of English made rope and was pleased to get 115 yards and only pay for 100 yards. That was back in the day when the yard was defined as the distance from the king's nose to the tip of his finger. I.e. the 100 English yards, when DESCRIBED by the short-armed French king, became 115 yards. Note there is NO PHYSICAL CAUSE for the rope being 15 yards longer than paid for. The "cause" is fact rope is being DESCRIBED by the French frame units, but was made with the English frame units.

    When frame A's clocks and meter sticks are used to DESCRIBE events taking place or trips made by clocks in frame B, the resulting time intervals in B may be dilated or the lengths contracted, (and of course conversely if B's units are DESCRIBING event in frame A.)
    Last edited by Billy T; 09-04-09 at 09:30 PM.

  13. #1073
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    MacM:Here's what I said:

    Now, let me break it down for you into baby-sized pieces.
    Don't EVEN pretend to talk down to me you pathetic egotistical pea brain.

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    By "same trip" I mean that we're talking about the same person in the same spaceship going from the same point A to the same point B and back to A again.
    You mean of course like this according to your own diagram:

    Originally Posted by James R:

    "Resting twin's view (using resting twin's clocks and rulers)
    Space: A.............................B................... ..........A
    Time: 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9.... 10...11...12

    Travelling twin's view (using travelling twin's clocks and rulers)
    Space: A..............B..............A
    Time: 0....1....2....3....4....5....6
    Which shows just what I said it shows in my diagrams as well.

    Going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity, means there was and can be no tick rate change of clocks between frames.

    They tick in sync and hence the resting clock also has accumulated 6 hours at the time the traveling twin returns in 6 hours.

    It is false in that NO time dilation occurs. The diagrams merely make the obvious easier to see. The text says it all.

    Repeated once more for the slow learners:

    Going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity means there was and can be no tick rate change of clocks between frames.

    They tick in sync and hence the resting clock also has accumulated 6 hours at the time the traveling twin returns in 6 hours.


    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Crucially, the "resting" observer says the distance between points A and B is twice the distance that the "travelling" observer says it is.
    Rhetoric and pure mathematical but invalid physical conditions as proven by the diagrams.

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Also crucial is the fact that if the resting observer measures the traveller as travelling as velocity v, then the travelling observer measures the resting observer as travelling at velocity -v.
    Tell us something we don't know and haven't all ready stipulated. See red in my comments here and posted in prior posts. And I don't want to hear about +v and -v. That is understood by all when discussing relative velocity.

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Say the distance between A and B is 100 kilometres according to the "resting" observer and the traveller's speed is 100 kilometres per hour. Then, the resting observer will measure the round-trip time to be 2 hours. The travelling observer says the distance between A and B is 50 km, and points A and B travel at 100 km/hr in the travelling observer's frame of reference. The round-trip time in this case will be 1 hour.
    Amend your diagram. Verbal and pure mathematical treatment is insufficient.

    Going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the time, at the same velocity means both clocks continue to tick at the same rate and accumulate the same amount of time for the return of the traveling twin. - PERIOD. Real physics mandates that what would actually happen is the resting twin would see and compute his brotheras trveling 200km/hr not 100km/hr as you assert. Check your diagram.

    Your stipulated conditions are not what is real on the ground. They are false bases.

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    When the two observers get back together and compare clocks, they find that for the SAME TRIP (i.e. round-trip from A to B to A), the resting observer's clock has ticked off 2 hours, while the travelling observer's clock has ticked off 1 hour.
    False. The resting observer would see him return in 1 hour and believe he went 200 km/hr. Check your diagram.

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    The "total accumulated times" on the two clocks are NOT the same. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that the two clocks ticked at the same rate.
    Poor lost James R. Look at your diagram again and this time take the SR blindersoff.

    If you go 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity, both clocks MUST remain synchronized and accumulate the same amount of time when the traveling twin returns, hence spatial contraction is a false concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Is that simple enough for you?
    If you go 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity, both clocks MUST remain synchronized and accumulate the same amount of time when the traveling twin returns, hence spatial contraction is a false concept.

    This is a physical relationship you cannot deny but your post is pure rhetoric and dogma. It is a verbal recitation of a concept proven false by my text and these diagrams.

    Is that simple enough for you.

  14. #1074
    'sigh'; I'd have thought the phrase "continuous change" would have done it.

    Acceleration is a change in velocity; velocity is continuous motion at a fixed or discrete energy.
    Continuous "energy" has a discrete velocity; so energy and velocity are congruent when there is zero acceleration. Zero acceleration is when the rest mass is zero, since a nonzero mass will have zero velocity initially, and its energy will change as it accelerates to a new velocity - it can do this in steps of "velocity" changes as a sequence of different intermediate velocities, by accelerating stepwise, or by accelerating continuously to the final velocity = energy.

    The energies are equivalent if you have mass (like a classical particle) and reach a terminal velocity, or if you don't have any mass (you're a quantum of energy), and can reach terminal v "instantaneously"; because you don't "accelerate" any mass.

  15. #1075
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    To James R:

    However, MacM is likely to take your "it is IMPOSSIBLE that the two clocks ticked at the same rate" as contrary to my "Good clocks always tick at the same rate in their own frames."
    More Billy T bullshit. Why would I disagree with what I have been saying. synchronized clocks does not match empirical data.

    You really shold learn to stay on the same side of the fence and stop hopping all around.

    In case you some how could have missed the 12 or so prior posts saying the ssame thing:

    Origianlly Posted by MacM:"Going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same velocity, means there was and can be no tick rate change of clocks between frames.

    They tick in sync and hence the resting clock also has accumulated 6 hours at the time the traveling twin returns in 6 hours.

    It is false in that NO time dilation occurs.

    You look totally stupid.

  16. #1076
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    I already have, six times now, except I never added the identical, uniformly spaced, "time rulers" as James did in post 1051. I just showed what is the only difference between the resting and traveling twin’s frames. I.e. for the SIXTH TIME NOW:

    ______________________________________ D
    VS.
    _____________________d (for the traveler's frame measuring the distance between start and turn back points FIXED IN THE NON-TRAVLERS FRAME)

    Jame's post 1051 is exactly what mine would be if I were to add these identically spaced (because all clocks tick at the same rate in their own frames) "time rulers"

    For probably the 15th time:
    There is no contraction or time dilation in either frame. (Hence no need of any "physical cause.") These SR effects are due ENTIRELY to DESCRIBING events etc. of one frame in terms of / with the units of / another frame (i.e. with the meter sticks and clocks of some frame other than the frame in which the described events are taking place.)

    You are so dense that I even made following analogy for you:
    The short armed King of France ordered 100 yards of English made rope and was pleased to get 115 yards and only pay for 100 yards. That was back in the day when the yard was defined as the distance from the king's nose to the tip of his finger. I.e. the 100 English yards, when DESCRIBED by the short-armed French king, became 115 yards. Note there is NO PHYSICAL CAUSE for the rope being 15 yards longer than paid for. The "cause" is fact rope is being DESCRIBED by the French frame units, but was made with the English frame units.

    When frame A's clocks and meter sticks are used to DESCRIBE events taking place or trips made by clocks in frame B, the resulting time intervals in B may be dilated or the lengths contracted, (and of course conversely if B's units are DESCRIBING event in frame A.)
    Inadequate recycled BS. Now post a qualified diatance and time diagram. I will not keep correcting your BS.

    If you can't post a diagram then point out just how going 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at the same velocity purports to cause clocks to change tick rate. Remember the accumulated time is only correct if t = d/v
    matches.

    Lets see.

    t1 = 120 mile/60 Mph = 2 hrs.

    t2 = 60 miles/60 Mph = 1 hr.

    These results can only be achieved if t1 tick rate = t2 tick rate.

  17. #1077
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by noodler View Post
    'sigh'; I'd have thought the phrase "continuous change" would have done it.

    Acceleration is a change in velocity; velocity is continuous motion at a fixed or discrete energy.
    Continuous "energy" has a discrete velocity; so energy and velocity are congruent
    We agree in part but unfortunately they will cling to the assumption that your velocity must be in relation to something and cannot be absolute.

    Their belief is based on the false idea that:

    "Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence". Hence there is no absolute frame.

  18. #1078
    Velocity is in relation to something: if you have mass you have energy because you were accelerated relative to a "resting frame" in which you had no velocity. The something is "the rest mass".

    If you have no mass your velocity is still relative, but you didn't accelerate because you have no "resting frame", only (relative) absolute zero energy.

  19. #1079
    MacM:

    As usual you're making a basic, childish mistake.

    Consider three points on a straight road: A, B and C. Suppose the distance from A to B is 100 km and the distance from B to C is 100 km. Suppose a car drives from A to C at 100 km/hr.

    The time taken to travel from A to B is then 1 hour, and there's another hour from B to C, making the total trip time from A to C equal to 2 hours.

    Now suppose that 2 cars drive along this road, starting from A. Both travel at 100 km/hr. Car 1 stops at point B, while car 2 drives on to point C. The trip time for Car 1 is then 1 hour and the trip time for Car 2 is 2 hours. Car 1 travelled half the distance that Car 2 travelled, and it took half the time. The "clocks" in cars 1 and 2 ticked at the same rate (note: I am ignoring the very very small time dilation effect at 100 km/hr here. This is kindergarten physics for your benefit. We'll get to relativity later.)

    Are you with me so far? Do you want to disagree with any of the above analysis?

    Now, we could draw a diagram for this. It would look something like this:
    Code:
    Space:      A.......................B.......................C
    Car 1 time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60
    Car 2 time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120
    Here, the times measured on clocks in the two cars are marked off in minutes.

    Still with me?

    Now, it seems that the above is your argument for the twin paradox situation as well - that one twin travels half the distance of the other in half the time, so the clocks must tick at the same rate.

    Your basic misunderstanding - the misunderstanding of a small child - is that in the example above, there are TWO DIFFERENT TRIPS! Car 1 drives from A to B. Car 2 drives from A to C.

    Now we turn to the twin paradox situation. That looks something like this:

    Code:
    Stationary twin space: A.......................B.......................A
    Stationary twin time:  0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120
     
    Travelling twin space: A...........B...........A 
    Travelling twin time:  0..10..20..30..40..50..60
    Here, the stationary twin measures the travelling twin as travelling (say), 200 km in 120 minutes, at a speed of 100 km/hr. The travelling twin measures the distance as 100 km and the trip takes 60 minutes at 100 km/hr.

    Now can you see the crucial point of difference between this example and the kindergarten example above, boys and girls?

    Yes, that's right kiddies! In the twin paradox example, we're not talking about two DIFFERENT trips any more, but THE SAME TRIP!

    In the twin example, BOTH observers watch the traveller go from A to B to A. In the stationary observer's frame, the traveller does NOT cover any ground that the traveller does not also cover in the traveller's frame. ALL points passed through on this trip are passed through in both frames.

    This is quite OBVIOUSLY different to the situation where car 1 never reaches point C, while car 2 does get to point C.

    Now, MacM. The question is: are you still going to act like a big baby about this, or give in an admit your kindergarten mistake?

  20. #1080
    Quote Originally Posted by MacM View Post
    Don't EVEN pretend to talk down to me you pathetic egotistical pea brain.
    So he's egotistical for saying you're wrong but you're not for your claim that you've known for decades that modern physics is wrong and only now in your retirement are you throwing us your intellectual scraps.

    Yeah, that's not egotistical at all.....

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
  •