1. Originally Posted by MacM
No intrusion at all. You are within your right to decide forc yourself but I urge you to remember I am not claiming the math is wrong. I am claiming it does not match any physical reality.

If you choose the math then you must explain just how you trvel 1/2 the diatance in 1/2 the time at the same speed and have your clock dilate compared to the resting clock.
I know you believe you have found something the buggers up the theory. Either you haven't been able to explain it to the satisfaction of the other thread participants or you don't have a case. You have to decide if you are going to be able to gain ground on this thread of if you should go back to the drawing board and work up a "show and tell" that makes your case.

May I recommend you make your own web page and then use that as a topic of a thread. That way what you say can't be twisted around and that way you are on the record so your position can be falsified.

2. Originally Posted by quantum_wave
I know you believe you have found something the buggers up the theory. Either you haven't been able to explain it to the satisfaction of the other thread participants or you don't have a case. You have to decide if you are going to be able to gain ground on this thread of if you should go back to the drawing board and work up a "show and tell" that makes your case.

May I recommend you make your own web page and then use that as a topic of a thread. That way what you say can't be twisted around and that way you are on the record so your position can be falsified.
They have been shown numerous times but they choose to ignore the following.

As you go forward remember:

1 - Do you believe you must have a physical cause for a physical result? I say "Yes".

2 - Do you believe if something is physical in it's frame it must also be physical in all frames? I again say "Yes"

3 - Is there empirical data supporting time dilation of an accelerated clock but not a resting clock? The answer is "Yes"

4 - Is there any evidence or empirical data supporting the assertion of Special Relativity that space (distance) contracts? - The answer is "No".

Given these physical conditions as a reality then:

If you Travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed, it means your clock has not changed it's tick rate. If it's rate has not changed then it must continue to tick in unison with the resting clock.

That means upon arrival at the end of the trip your clock and a resting clock must have accumulated an equal amount of lapsed time for the trip and NO time dilation can be demonstrated.

Since that is inconsistant with emperical test data it falsifies the arbitrary merger of time-space and falsifies the spatial contraction component of Special Relativity.

Dan Keith McCoin - MacM

3. Originally Posted by MacM
Well if you consider formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics design not much then what can I can.

If you consider holding numerous patents, having operated my own R&D Corp for decades, having done NASA contracts, with my work is published by NASA and having done \$1M contracts with major international companies , is nothing then I guess you are right I haven't accomplished anything.
My father has over 300 papers published in aerospace, including work done with NASA, he's got a professorship, published numerous books, edits an industry leading journal and he knows nothing about any of theoretical physics. Being a mechanical engineer or an electrical one (my father headed an entire engineering department for more than a decade) doesn't mean you have any experience with relativity.

So I stick by what I said, you have no formal training, relevant formal training.

Originally Posted by MacM
Ah. Glad you raised the issue of GPS since GPS does not use special relativy to compute orbit velocity dialtion. Thought you were an educated smart guy. The fact is all sea level surface clocks tick at the same rate regardless of latitude i.e. at sea level at the North Pole and the Equator tick the same.

GPS in fact computes orbit velocity to the ECI (Earth Center Inertial) frame. Which happens to be a preferred frame where SR's inherent reciproicty is prohibited. That is you cannot claim the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has orbit velocity.
GPS uses general relativity, which includes special relativity. If SR is wrong, GR is wrong. And part of the GPS calculation involves time dilation due to motion. And you're wrong about all clocks at the Earth's surface ticking at the same rate. The equator moves at about 1000mph, the poles simply rotate. That's why most rocket launch sites are near the equator, so that they get the energy boost from the rotation of the Earth, which means less fuel is needed. And its true that you can't use SR directly to compute the effects due to a lack of inertial frames but you can use GR. SR is a special case of GR, if SR is fundamentally flawed, so must GR be.

Or is this logic getting a little too much for you to follow?

Originally Posted by MacM
I have in fact given the example many times where two objects have relative velocity and in fact have the same accumulated time in spite of having had relative velocity.
Obviously understanding basic English is a struggle for you but I'll say it again :

No physicist claims that relative motion guarantees different measured periods of time.

I gave an explicit example, which (despite all your formal training) you utterly failed to understand, where two people move with relative motion yet measure the same amount of time between two events.

You have created a strawman, believing that physicists say something they do not.

Originally Posted by MacM
Rhetoric. There is no emperical data showing a resting clock dilated once relative velocity ends. Your question is off point and their response therefore irrelevant.
Clearly you didn't understand what I said because I said nothing like that. I gave an explicit example of how two people can move with non-zero relative velocity and end up measuring the same amount of time. You might need to brush up on your formal training a bit in order to understand.

Originally Posted by MacM
It doesn't seem your mathe skills are appropriate for the taks because the issue is not about the mathematics.
That's your excuse for avoiding doing anything quantitative because you know if you leave the realm of arm waving whining you'll fall flat on your face.

4. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
My father has over 300 papers published in aerospace, including work done with NASA, he's got a professorship, published numerous books, edits an industry leading journal and he knows nothing about any of theoretical physics. Being a mechanical engineer or an electrical one (my father headed an entire engineering department for more than a decade) doesn't mean you have any experience with relativity.

So I stick by what I said, you have no formal training, relevant formal training.
Perhaps a bit of surprise to you but I am not offended by this part of your post. I have never claimed to be an expert in relativity. I do know physics and it is obvious to anyone willing to look at the actual facts that the time-space concept as advocated by current Special Relativity violates basic physics.

That is to say I find your mathematical skills also irrelevant to the issue raised. You should take very much to heart what Einstein said:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au..._einstein.html

As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
Your responses verify that you lack true understanding of any underlying physics or you refuse to actually consider the challenge.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
GPS uses general relativity, which includes special relativity.
This is what I mean. You proceed based on preconcieved concepts. The assertion that SR is GR in flat space doesn't cut it and frankly is irrelevant.

Einstein himself said when he published General Relativity that postulate 2 (invariance of light) was only true in absence of gravity. Since gravity exists everywhere there is no place in the universe where space is flat and SR valid.

Useful if properly limited yes but not valid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Quote by Einstein - Chapter 22 General Relativity
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.

A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.

But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

- Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)
Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
If SR is wrong, GR is wrong.
False premis. SR according to Einstin is only valid in flat space (absence of gravity fields) which excludes every cubic inch of the universe. So it clearly is not valid but still useful if gravity is sufficiently small. However, that is not to say General Relativity is valid but it certainly is more valid.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And part of the GPS calculation involves time dilation due to motion.
Please post the velocity component calculations using GR. The motion calculation is based on orbit velocity to the ECI frame, not to surface clocks. The calculation is based on a preferred frame which is prohibited by SR but is in the form of LR.

Further there is a dispute which there is no uniform agreement on today in modern science. Orbit is a rotating frame where velocity is constantly changing i.e. - angular change, and that as such it is constantly accelerating and is a non-inertial frame.

It is in the realm of GR not SR. But the counter arguement is that orbit is in free-fall and free-fall in a gravity field is also considered inertial.

So I do not dispute time dilation or the principle of relativity. I do reject Einstein's Special Relativity for good cause.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And you're wrong about all clocks at the Earth's surface ticking at the same rate. The equator moves at about 1000mph, the poles simply rotate. That's why most rocket launch sites are near the equator, so that they get the energy boost from the rotation of the Earth, which means less fuel is needed.
Thank you for showing your lack of understanding. I said nothing about clocks having the same rotational velocity anywhere on earth at sea level. I said they tick in sync. Since you do not know that, or understand that, then you have clearly exposed that you know less than myself about certain GPS issues concerning SR. The answer is actually simple. Due to the rotation the earth it has formed an oblate spheroid and the affect of GR precisely and completely offsets the velocity affect at sea level at all latitudes.

******************************** Extract **********************************
http://graycarbon.com/post/36857159/...-on-the-earths

Basically if someone is moving slower than you than their time runs faster that yours and if someone is moving faster than you than their time runs slower than yours. We are in luck because as you move to higher elevations on the earth your speed increases. This means that time will go slower for us due to special relativity. When we combine the effects of general relativity and special relativity they cancel each other out(this only works comparing two spots of the surface of the earth).

************************************************** ******************************
So one could go to the trouble of computing both the GR component and latitude surface velocity components at sea level and attempt to use that applying lorentz formulas. But as I have previously demonstrated IF you assume earth's rotational velocity to be ve and orbit velocity to be vo where relative velocity was considered to be vr = vo-ve then the time dilation function only produces -5.8us/day dilation. That is an incorrect value.

However if you compute te'=t(1-ve^2/c^2)^0.5 and to' = t(1-vo^2/c^2)^0.5 and then take the respective dilation components delta t = te' - to' produces -7.2 us/day which is the correct value that is empirically supported. That is the difference between respective time dilations to a common rest frame (the ECI) is valid but not any computation between clocks.

However, the fact is due to the complexiety of earth surface clocks ticking the same at all latitudes and the affects of elevation considering that the surface te' produces less than 1% of any dilation, it is not used at all. Only the to' is calculated. There are numerous other frames and calculations but not for orbit velocity or surface velocity.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And its true that you can't use SR directly to compute the effects due to a lack of inertial frames
That is debateable see above but yours is one view. There are numerous physicists that argue SR and GR are both applied. That just isn't so. GR is and LR velocity is.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
but you can use GR. SR is a special case of GR, if SR is fundamentally flawed, so must GR be.
Again a false premis. SR is known even by Einstein to be flawed but useable. The fact is had GR preceeded SR, SR would never have been formulated.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Or is this logic getting a little too much for you to follow?
Oh, I'm doing fine. How about yourself?. Have you been able to develope a physics rebuttal to the issue of:

1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed means that the clock did not change tick rate and hence is ticking in sync with the resting clock. There is NO physical exception SR's ignoring physical reality does not change physical reality. Therefore at the end of the trrip both clocks must display the same amount of time for the trip. That precludes any measured time dilation.

Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's mathematical spatial contraction which invalidates SR as advocated by Einstein.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Obviously understanding basic English is a struggle for you but I'll say it again :

No physicist claims that relative motion guarantees different measured periods of time.
Good. Please tell James R and Billy T while you are at it and might I say it is about time. Granted once SR was published and the Twin Paradox became the embarrassement that it was to Einstein and he ultimately concieved GR he then said time dilation was in the one frame that had gone non-inertial, SR became a bit more acceptable.

However what is unfortunate is that people choose to ignore that to consider who accelerated (switched frames) means you were actually stipulating who accelerated and possessed "Actual Velocity" vs original SR's "Mere Relative Velocity" you are no longer using SR but a form of LR or absolute change in inertial velocity to a rest frame and not relative velocity between clocks with relative motion..

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I gave an explicit example, which (despite all your formal training) you utterly failed to understand, where two people move with relative motion yet measure the same amount of time between two events.
NONSENSE. You are starting to aggravate me with your false negative innuendo. I have NOT failed to understand any such post. The simple fact is I have posted scenarios numerous times demonstrating the fact that relative velocity can be as a result of symmetrical acceleration and no dilation occurs between the pair but both dilate equally to the common rest frame. So I have no idea where you are getting this BS.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You have created a strawman, believing that physicists say something they do not.
No. I have pointed out what "Some" have said and I have pointed out what SR actually says. You seem to have a simular problem as James R and that is reading comprehension or in fact reading what you are commenting about. I have also pointed out what you and no other physicist has ever been able to refute SR is falsified becasue of it's addvocation of spatial distance contraction.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Clearly you didn't understand what I said because I said nothing like that. I gave an explicit example of how two people can move with non-zero relative velocity and end up measuring the same amount of time. You might need to brush up on your formal training a bit in order to understand.
You embarass yourself here. Those that follow my threads know very well I have said the same thing hundreds of times. So for you to come on here and pretend to be talking down to me shows your ignorance about my views and understandings.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
That's your excuse for avoiding doing anything quantitative because you know if you leave the realm of arm waving whining you'll fall flat on your face.
In summary I will remind everyone that you have FAILED to respond to the physics challenge I have presented and you attempt to pull a James R routine by diverting attention to personalities and making false statements about what I have said, believe or understand.

I stand by my statements until anyone posts valid physics rebuttal that to go 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time , at the same speed, means the clock has NOT changed tick rate and hence MUST still be ticking in sync with the resting clock such that they MUST accumulate the same amount of trip time and no time dilation could exist.

Since that is inconsistant with emperical data it falsifies SR's spatial length contraction which flasifies SR.

Now wise guy with all your mathematics can you handle a bit of 3rd grade arithmatic? All your high level qualifications have absolutely no bearing on this issue. It is not about SR mathematics. It is about very straight foward physical relationships. Now address this correctly or admit you have no valid response and stop the personal vilification nonsense.

If you persist you will start to receive what you sow. Bottom line, I am very UNimpressed by your knowledge or ability to address simple physics issues. So I have to wonder as to your actual training or if you are one of those that can read and hang on others coat tails but can't think for themselves types.

5. I know I committed to stay out of this thread, but the repeated references to ECI are coming up again and again, and I can't figure out why this is. By the looks of it MacM, you're using a formula for gravitational time dilation calculated with Earth taken as the rest frame. From this frame you then calculate the time difference due to inertial motion for the two clocks, and adding this time difference to the time difference due to gravity, you come up with your result. Then you argue that if you use a frame in which the surface clock is instantaneously at rest at some given moment, and do the calculations in this frame, you get the wrong answer.

Firstly, I hope you realize that you can't use the relative velocity expression $v_r=v_o-v_e$, because velocity addition in relativity is nonlinear. I'm assuming that you know this already, and you've checked that using the proper relativistic corrections to this formula makes virtually no difference to the time dilation. Please confirm. The second issue is that if you switch to a frame in which the Earth-based clock is momentarily at rest, the expression for spacetime curvature as seen in this reference frame is required to be altered accordingly. The spacetime metric describing gravity and gravity's effect on time is not observer independent, at least as far as GR is concerned (and I'll take it as given, since you're trying to use GR to find a self-contradiction). Have you attempted to alter your gravitational calculations in accordance with the change in reference frame? If so, let's see your calculations or at least the formula you're using in this case.

One of the fundamental mathematical postulates on which GR is built is the assumption that all inertial reference frames are equivalent, and doing the calculation you describe from any such reference frame MUST give the same result. All of the equations and results in GR are built and derived within this framework, meaning if you truly did have an example of a preferred reference frame which gave difference results from others, the equations of GR could not transform properly to or from this frame, and hence you would have found a contradiction in the very basis of mathematics itself. As I say, I think the biggest problem is your failure to account for how different reference frames perceive and are affected by spacetime curvature in different ways.

6. Originally Posted by CptBork
I know I committed to stay out of this thread
Clearly I should have done the same, Mac is utterly immune to any kind of logic and as BillyT has pointed out many times he's simply making strawmen and claiming that to be the mainstream view.

And Mac, there's a difference between knowing some physics and knowing relevant physics. You don't know any relevant physics and you're trying to make excuses for that by saying mathematics shouldn't come into it. In other words you wish to avoid doing or claiming anything precise and instead stick to the realm cranks much prefer, qualitative arm flailing.

The fact SR is only an approximation to the real universe doesn't negate my comment about if it is flawed so is GR. In terms of self consistency if SR has a flaw then this flaw will also appear in GR, you can come up with physical situations where GR is inconsistent. Of course you wouldn't know, having never done any physics remotely like that but the Lorentz symmetry of SR is a local symmetry of GR, at every point in a curved space you have local Lorentz symmetry. SR is a special case of GR when this symmetry is made global (in some sense), you can apply the Lorentz transformation everywhere consistently.

The fact you think the twin paradox is a literal paradox and an 'embarassment' shows how little you understand. I teach 1st years this stuff and they manage to get it. Obviously in all that work for NASA you never did basic coordinate transformations.

7. Originally Posted by MacM
Again you seem to want to pick and choose your physics. ...
Quite a laugh coming from one who calls motion that even a child can see an "illusion" and states the many experiments that have measured the speed of light to be constant are only "illusions" that C is constant, independent of Earth's reversing orbital speed about the sun etc. MacM ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that the speed of light is identical with the inverse root of the product of the measured vacuum permeability and dielectric constant as was even predicted by Maxwell from his equations and these measurements. (MacM probably cannot even solve Maxwell’s equations for the wave equation showing this - but never mind that, MacM has his sources) The truth has been revealed to MacM, so he knows illusion when he sees it. All the experimental evidence confirming standard SR is just "illusion."

MacM has cited evidence too: It includes one guy's Email to another, which support MacM's point of view. And MacM has also found three or four "physicists" who also question parts of standard SR. Even exchanged Emails with them. (What more proof is needed?) - Their and his Emails of course do not suffer from being "illusions." No, NO, NO only the 100,000 well educated Ph.D. physicist over the last 100 years are guilty of "picking and choosing" and suffering from “mass illusions.”

8. Originally Posted by CptBork
I know I committed to stay out of this thread, but the repeated references to ECI are coming up again and again, and I can't figure out why this is. By the looks of it MacM, you're using a formula for gravitational time dilation calculated with Earth taken as the rest frame.
Welcome back. That is because that is what they do.

Originally Posted by CptBork
From this frame you then calculate the time difference due to inertial motion for the two clocks, and adding this time difference to the time difference due to gravity, you come up with your result.
Yes and no. I do that calculation to show it is in the range of -7.2us/day but then explain that GPS doesn't do that. They do NOT compute the surface rotational velocity and take the difference in time dilation with orbit dilation. They ONLY compute the orbit velocity to the ECI rest frame and get the -7.2us/day dilation that is because the 've' component is less than 1% if it were applied that way - it is not.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Then you argue that if you use a frame in which the surface clock is instantaneously at rest at some given moment, and do the calculations in this frame, you get the wrong answer.
Correct.

Originally Posted by CptBork
Firstly, I hope you realize that you can't use the relative velocity expression $v_r=v_o-v_e$, because velocity addition in relativity is nonlinear. I'm assuming that you know this already, and you've checked that using the proper relativistic corrections to this formula makes virtually no difference to the time dilation. Please confirm.
Of course I know about velocity addition. However I do not see velocity addition applying when you are considering relative velocity between two clocks. Velocity addition comes into play when you have relative velocity between an observer watching a craft with relative velocity to you and aboard that craft a third object such as a missle is fired. Velocity addition has to do with the missle velocity to you.

The craft would be 'v' and is the velocity relative to you. The missle velocity to the craft would be 'u' with the formula being w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2) or w = (v-u)/(1-vu/c^2) depending on the direction the misle was fired. Where w is the compound velocity between you and the missile.

Originally Posted by CptBork
The second issue is that if you switch to a frame in which the Earth-based clock is momentarily at rest, the expression for spacetime curvature as seen in this reference frame is required to be altered accordingly. The spacetime metric describing gravity and gravity's effect on time is not observer independent, at least as far as GR is concerned (and I'll take it as given, since you're trying to use GR to find a self-contradiction). Have you attempted to alter your gravitational calculations in accordance with the change in reference frame? If so, let's see your calculations or at least the formula you're using in this case.
I have made no GR considerations what-so-ever. I am strictly concerned about SR. As far as picking a frame where earth's surface is at rest I'm asuming you mean the vr = vo - ve.

That of course is not what is done and I merely go through that routine to show that IF you were to think that relative velocity was the difference in rotational velocity that you would get an incorrect answer.

Originally Posted by CptBork
One of the fundamental mathematical postulates on which GR is built is the assumption that all inertial reference frames are equivalent, and doing the calculation you describe from any such reference frame MUST give the same result. All of the equations and results in GR are built and derived within this framework, meaning if you truly did have an example of a preferred reference frame which gave difference results from others, the equations of GR could not transform properly to or from this frame, and hence you would have found a contradiction in the very basis of mathematics itself. As I say, I think the biggest problem is your failure to account for how different reference frames perceive and are affected by spacetime curvature in different ways.
The ECI is preferred in that you CANNOT declare the orbiting clock as being at rest and the ECI having the orbit velocity. It prohibits the reciprocity of a mere relative velocity view and creates instead an absolute velocity view between orbit and the ECI.

I think you read to much into the term preferred referrence frame as being applied here. You are trying to extend it into having some meaning in GR which I have never claimed.

First of all the surface rotational velocity is NOT inertial while the orbit rotational velocity can be considered inertial since it is in constrant free-fall. So the improper form vr = vo - ve would be mixing an inertial frame with a non-inertial frame. That is IF you were to consider orbit as inertial. Some do and some don't and some like James R can't seem to decide and has flip-flopped claiming SR is used and then SR is not used. That orbit is non-inertial and is continuously accelerating or thatit is inertial and in free-fall.

BTW: I would like to hear your rebuttal for my charge:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then you clock has not changed tick rate; hence must be still ticking in sync with the resting clock such that both clocks record the same accumulated time for the trip and no time dilation will have occured.

Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's assertion that there is spatial distance contraction hence falsifies SR.

9. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Clearly I should have done the same, Mac is utterly immune to any kind of logic and as BillyT has pointed out many times he's simply making strawmen and claiming that to be the mainstream view.
And how does this respond to the "1/2" sceanario? It doesn't. What you can't refute my flawed logic? What does that say about your abilities?

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
And Mac, there's a difference between knowing some physics and knowing relevant physics. You don't know any relevant physics and you're trying to make excuses for that by saying mathematics shouldn't come into it. In other words you wish to avoid doing or claiming anything precise and instead stick to the realm cranks much prefer, qualitative arm flailing.
My statement is absolutely correct and your purported mathematical skills have nothing to do with resolving this issue. Otherwise you would have done so,

As far as knowing 'some' physics comment, it appears you are a bit flushed and embarassed about your rush to judgement about my knowledge and sticking your foot in your mouth.

You have bveen caught making absolute statements as though you knew something that you knew absolutely nothing about. So your opinions about me and my knowledge has absolutely no merit. I have to question your veracity about your own qualifications.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The fact SR is only an approximation to the real universe doesn't negate my comment about if it is flawed so is GR. In terms of self consistency if SR has a flaw then this flaw will also appear in GR, you can come up with physical situations where GR is inconsistent. Of course you wouldn't know, having never done any physics remotely like that but the Lorentz symmetry of SR is a local symmetry of GR, at every point in a curved space you have local Lorentz symmetry. SR is a special case of GR when this symmetry is made global (in some sense), you can apply the Lorentz transformation everywhere consistently.
So if I'm wrong please explain the "1/2" issue.

Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The fact you think the twin paradox is a literal paradox and an 'embarassment' shows how little you understand. I teach 1st years this stuff and they manage to get it. Obviously in all that work for NASA you never did basic coordinate transformations.
I do not think the Twin Paradox is a paradox at all. I have never said so. I refer to it because it is inherently understood that you are talking about two clocks, one remaining statinary while the other goes out and travels around and the traveling clock becomes dilated while the resting clock does not.

Spatial distance contraction is part of the explanation according to relativity and I PROVE that if spatial contraction were physically real no time dilation occurs; hence I falsify SR.

If you disagree then please post your rebuttal it doesn't require your higher mathematics just the ability to think and do 3rd grade arithmatic. What this is over your head, to hard to explain?

IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then you clock has not changed tick rate; hence must be still ticking in sync with the resting clock such that both clocks record the same accumulated time for the trip and no time dilation will have occured.

Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's assertion that there is spatial distance contraction hence falsifies SR.

10. Originally Posted by Billy T
Quite a laugh coming from one who calls motion that even a child can see an "illusion"
Since I have NEVER ever made such a stupid assertion and since you have repeated this lie several times after having been corrected, you are showng your failure to have anything of substance to post.

You are a deliberate distorter, liar and fool.

Originally Posted by Billy T
and states the many experiments that have measured the speed of light to be constant are only "illusions" that C is constant, independent of Earth's reversing orbital speed about the sun etc. MacM ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that the speed of light is identical with the inverse root of the product of the measured vacuum permeability and dielectric constant as was even predicted by Maxwell from his equations and these measurements. (MacM probably cannot even solve Maxwell’s equations for the wave equation showing this - but never mind that, MacM has his sources) The truth has been revealed to MacM, so he knows illusion when he sees it. All the experimental evidence confirming standard SR is just "illusion."
I have correctly suggested possible explanations for the apparent invariance issue.

When you are done with your normal diatribe of personal slander try refuting my charge:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then you clock has not changed tick rate; hence must be still ticking in sync with the resting clock such that both clocks record the same accumulated time for the trip and no time dilation will have occured.

Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's assertion that there is spatial distance contraction hence falsifies SR.

While it certainly is far from the truth even if I were a totally incompetent person devoid any education, physics knowlefge or math abilities IT IS STILL ENCUMBENT UPON YOU TO EITHER REFUTE MY ASSERTION ABOVE OR SHUT THE HELL UP.

Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM has cited evidence too: It includes one guy's Email to another, which support MacM's point of view. And MacM has also found three or four "physicists" who also question parts of standard SR. Even exchanged Emails with them. (What more proof is needed?) - Their and his Emails of course do not suffer from being "illusions." No, NO, NO only the 100,000 well educated Ph.D. physicist over the last 100 years are guilty of "picking and choosing" and suffering from “mass illusions.”
Appeal to authority WOW I'm impressed. Pathetic.

BTW I posted a half dozen or so e-mails just to refute certain accusations being made about my views were inconsistant with physicists. The fact is I am a member ofthe NPA which has over 1,500 members that reject SR and within it a maverick club where several dozen are currently making a collective effort to formalize the falsification.

Just keeping you a bit more honest. That seems to be a full time job.

I at least am working with real physics and not your magic where you assert the physical loss of time occurs when you claim NOTHING physical changes in either frame.

WHAT A JOKE. NOTHING PHYSICAL CHANGES YET YOU PRODUCE A PHYSICAL CHANGE RESULT. DO YOU BELIEVE IN THE TOOTH FAIRY TOO?

11. Originally Posted by MacM
{post 1138}Again you seem to want to pick and choose your physics. ...

My reply to the above was:
Originally Posted by Billy T
{post 1147}Quite a laugh coming from one who calls motion that even a child can see an "illusion" and states the many experiments that have measured the speed of light to be constant are only "illusions" that C is constant ...
Originally Posted by MacM
{post 1150}... Since I have NEVER ever made such a stupid assertion and since you have repeated this lie several times after having been corrected, you are showng your failure to have anything of substance to post. You are a deliberate distorter, liar and fool....
Yes you have in post 997 and many earlier ones, not worth going back to find. You make many "stupid" (to reuse your own words) asserting and also you make many physic errors, BOTH in only 997 where you DO state there is an "illusion of motion", and C is not constant, that I will again expose and correct:
Originally Posted by MacM
{POST 997} …Absolutely true {that speed of light is not an invariant} because 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. I gave a possible explanation which I won't repeat here.... I have not once in my life claimed any velocity was an illusion of motion. I have pointed out that SR's claim of apparent time dilation during relative velocity is an "Illusion of Motion"... because the affect vanishes with no permanent change in accumulated time by clocks once relative velocity has terminated.**
As already noted MacM's physic is also wrong in his point (1).

I.e. there is a red shift in the frequency as photons climb out of a gravitational well that lowers their energy so that the photon's total energy, when then in a higher gravitational potential, remains a total constant, BUT THEIR SPEED IS UNCHANGED.

MacM may have been a good nuclear power plant engineer, but his physics is often wrong. You would think he would grow tired of having his false assertions and eroneous physics exposed with docummentation as above (post numbers given) by my re-posting of his errors and false staments that basically have no logic and are only name calling.

I can understand why MacM gets so angry at me that he resorts to name calling, but I do not reply in kind. - I just documment and let the facts speak for them selves.

Added by edit after MacM's post 1152:
**In post 1152 MacM attempts a "duck and weave" by claiming that I left out the red & blue text in his post 1152, but that is not even true. I originally left out the reason he gave starting with "because..." but I have now added it in red to this post as I can still edit it.(I left that "because ..." text and other parts of his post out) for two reasons:
(1) It is a false statement as to what SR states (I try to avoid repeating MacM's false claims about SR as that might lend them some creditabiltiy.). MacM is referring to the two clocks being back in the same frame again. MacM and SR agree that clock in the same frame tick at the same rate so his "terminanted" (the final red word above) must be referring to when the twin has returned from traveling in a different frame.
AND
(2) The red text now in my quote of MacM's post 997 above has nothing to do with the point, which was that MacM did call something (time dilation caused by motion) an "illusion of motion"

12. Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes you have in post 997 and many earlier ones, not worth going back to find. You make many "stupid" (to reuse your own words) asserting and also you make many physic errors, BOTH in only 997 where you DO state there is an "illusion of motion",
Well just to prove my point about you being a fuc___g liar, cheat and distorter here is the full passage from 997 that you mis-quote:

Originally Posted by MacM in #997:"NONSENSE. I have not once in my life claimed any velocity was and illusion of moton. I have pointed out that SR's claim of apparent time dilation during relative velocity is an "Illusion of Motion" because the affect vanishes with no permanent change in accumulated time by clocks once relative velocity has terminated.
How in the hell do you think for even 1 second you can remove KEY elements of a statement I have pointed out that SR's claim of apparent time dilation during relative velocity is an "Illusion of Motion" which alters the meaning and then post your bullshit.

NOTHING is that statement claims velocity is an "Illusion of Motion". Do you have a reading comprehension problem. Is english actually your natural language?

Go ahead you are proving just how desperate you are since you are unable to refute my falsification of SR.

Falsification of Special Relativity Claim by MacM:"IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed, then your clock has not changed tick rate hence it and a resting clock must be ticking in unison such that at the end of the trip they must also display the same accumulated trip time and no time dilation will be evident.

Since that is inconsistant with empirical data this physical fact falsifies SR Theory. - Dan Keith McCoin
Originally Posted by Billy T
and C is not constant, that I will again expose and correct:

As already noted MacM's physic is also wrong in his point (1).

I.e. there is a red shift in the frequency as photons climb out of a gravitational well that lowers their energy so that the photon's total energy, when then in a higher gravitational potential, remains a total constant, BUT THEIR SPEED IS UNCHANGED.
You again choose to ignore the point I have posted regarding Einstein's statement that postualte 2 invariance of light speed is only valid in absence of gravity and therefore has limited utility when gravity is sufficiently weak as to be ignored.

************************************************** *******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Quote by Einstein - Chapter 22 General Relativity
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)
************************************************** ****

That sir is Einstein not MacM saying the invariance postulate is false but still has utility in the approximation. So stick your BS where the sun doesn't shine.

Originally Posted by Billy T
MacM may have been a good nuclear power plant engineer, but his physics is often wrong. You would think he would grow tired of having his false assertions and eroneous physics exposed with docummentation as above (post numbers given) by my re-posting of his errors and false staments that basically have no logic and are only name calling.
Not at all, it is fun shoving your lying bullshit right back in your face. See above you remove key elements of a sentence and then make assinine accusations against your opposition. I love watching fool squirm when they are caught being stupid.

The same quoting of posts also shows you are just full of brown smelly stuff.

Originally Posted by Billy T
I can understand why MacM gets so angry at me that he resorts to name calling, but I do not reply in kind. - I just documment and let the facts speak for them selves.
Not at all, I hate liars, cheats and distorters that pretend to know what they clearly do not and that refuse to actually address issues but claim to have refuted something when their post was completely off topic and/or irrelevant.

You sir waste our time and I'm tired of your horsecrap. But the good part of this is others are definitely seeing the truth here.

13. Originally Posted by MacM
...How in the hell do you think for even 1 second you can remove KEY elements of a statement I have pointed out that SR's claim of apparent time dilation during relative velocity is an "Illusion of Motion" which alters the meaning and then post your bullshit. ...
No. Your red and blue text WAS NOT OMITTED IN MY POST 1151. In fact I had even made the entire sentence bold text and only made larger the words "is an illusion of motion" of that same sentence.

What the "..." indicates was omitted has now been added by edit to post 1151 and clearly has nothing to do with whether or not you explained that time dilation is due to an "illusion of motion." Fortunately post 997 is old so you can not now go back and remove your calling it an "illusion of motion." Anyone who cares can go back and see I quoted you accurately and completely except for originally leaving out the "because ..." which has now even been added in red text to my post 1151.

This duck and weave is not up to your normal standards as not even true of my post 1151! It is a fabrication about post 1151.
When I omit text, I always indicate that with "... " Try to find a post where I HAVE NOT DONE SO.

When I insert some text in someone else's post, for clarity, I do so with {......} if it is short or by change of color if it is a longer text. Try to find a post where I HAVE NOT DONE SO.

I.e. unlike you, I am honest when quoting or referring to someone else's text.

BTW1: you are again misrepresenting (or simply do not understand) what SR says about time dilation. SR's time dilation is NOT "apparent" but is a real result of DESCRIBING the tick rate (or rate time is "passing") in another frame in terms of your frame's seconds - call that the 31st time I have told you this.

BTW2: your quote from Einstein (Chapter 22 ): "... A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. ..." AS PROOF that the speed of light is changed by gravity only reflects you lack of understanding, not only of physics, but even vectors. Yes the VECTOR of light velocity when passing by the sun (or thru any gravitational field) does change in direction of propagation but there is no speed change.

I am not well versed in GENERAL relativity, but do know that from GR's POV there is not even a change in the direction of travel - In GR terms what we Newtonian space physicists call "bending of the rays" is false. - In vacuum light rays NEVER BENDS in the correct GR description of the propagation. - The rays always go straight ("travel along the geodesic" is how a GR-physicists says "go straight", I think.)* And travel at the same speed for all observers in ANY inertial frame (perhaps any frame from GR's POV. ?)

*I am sort of half way understanding this GR, as I do know about the "action principle" approach to physics (That is a technical use of the word "action" which is way beyond your understanding,** so will not even try to define it for you.) I.e. light rays always travel the trajectory of least action, even as they pass by the sun.

**Here is link to the wiki section on the Action Principle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_principle
It is considerabley more complex than simple calculus, which is beyound you as it is the calculus of variation. Here is the Wiki link to that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_variations

14. Originally Posted by Billy T
No. Your red and blue text WAS NOT OMITTED IN MY POST 1151. In fact I had even made the entire sentence bold text and only made larger the words "is an illusion of motion" of that same sentence.
ANOTHER LIE.

Here is your distorted version of my post from 997. As you can see you posted absolute nonsense and try to put it in my mouth and it is FALSE.

Yes you posted my statement but you then misinterprete it and put your own stupid conclusions to it. Now that is either deliberate distortion and lying or you are just plain stupid and cannot read. Which is it?

Originally Posted by Billy T in 1151:"Yes you have in post 997 and many earlier ones, not worth going back to find. You make many "stupid" (to reuse your own words) asserting and also you make many physic errors, BOTH in only 997 where you DO state there is an "illusion of motion", and C is not constant, that I will again expose and correct:
Covered this and proved you in error so why would you continue to post false dribble ?

Originally Posted by Billy T
What the "..." indicates was omitted has now been added by edit to post 1151 and clearly has nothing to do with whether or not you explained that time dilation is due to an "illusion of motion."
What the hell are you saying????? Who edited what. 1151 is YOUR post I cannot and did not edit anything. You seem to be trying to suggest I have gone back and added qualifying text. IF SO THAT IS OUTRIGHT BULLSHI_ and you are a worse person than even I can say here in a public forum.

Anyone that cares can go back and look at every and each post I have ever made which now are in the several thousand and I have never said what you are trying to claim I have said. You sir are an out right liar.

Originally Posted by Billy T
Fortunately post 997 is old so you can not now go back and remove your calling it an "illusion of motion." Anyone who cares can go back and see I quoted you accurately and completely except for originally leaving out the "because ..." which has now even been added in red text to my post 1151.
Again I do not know what the hell you are babbeling about because the text I posted was directly from #997, so thanks for pointing out edit time had expired.

The rest is recycled garbage and I will not continue to correct your BS.

FOLKS: THE ONLY THING BILLY T HAS SAID HERE THAT IS TRUE IS THAT MY POST #997 IS TO OLD TO HAVE BEEN EDITED AND GUESS WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY WHAT HE IS CLAIMING IT SAYS.

Originally Posted by MacM and still currently as written is the mis-quoted statement from #997:"NONSENSE. I have not once in my life claimed any velocity was and illusion of moton. I have pointed out that SR's claim of apparent time dilaton during relative veloicty is an "Illusion of Motion" because the affect vanishes with no permanent change in accumulated time by clocks once relative veloicty has terminated.
BILLY T HAS ONCE AGAIN BEEN SHOWN TO BE A DELIBERATE LIAR AND DISTORTER OF FACTS. - THANK YOU. YOU HAVE BURIED THE LAST SHREAD OF CREDABILITY YOU EVER HAD. WHICH NEVER WAS EVERY MUCH SO I GUESS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE NO REAL LOSS.

As for Einstein's statement you seem intent on not noticing these key phrases:

************************************************** *******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay

Quote by Einstein - Chapter 22 General Relativity
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity.

*************************
((((((((((This is what you attempt to substitute as the entire portion of his speech)))))

A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust.

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

But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity)
************************************************** ****
He merely clarifies that light bends and changes velocity in a gravity field. He does not say postuate 2 remains unaffected.

Extract from Einstein's Speech:" the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity.........cannot claim any unlimited validity..........its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).
Read more slowly and carefully please. Postulate 2 is not valid in a gravity field which includes every cubic inch of the universe!!!!! It may be used if and ONLY if you can ignore the affects of gravity. That is accept less than 100% invariance.

BTW: WHERE IS THAT PHYSICS REBUTTAL OF MY FALSIFICATION OF SR CLAIM???

15. Originally Posted by MacM
ANOTHER LIE.

Here is your distorted version of my post from 997.
Did you forget to quote showing where my post 1151 quote of your 997 has distorion? I.e. tell what is not exactly quoted as you posted in 997?
Originally Posted by MacM
... What the hell are you saying????? {by my text below} Who edited what. 1151 is YOUR post I cannot and did not edit anything. You seem to be trying to suggest I have gone back and added qualifying text. IF SO THAT IS OUTRIGHT BULLSHI_ and you are a worse person than even I can say here in a public forum. ... You sir are an out right liar. ...
If you could accurately read, there can be no misunderstanding. I clearly stated that after your post 1152 I added the red text to post 1151. Here that statment in post 1151 is:

Originally Posted by Billy T
{post1151}...Added by edit after MacM's post 1152:
**In post 1152 MacM attempts a "duck and weave" by claiming that I left out the red & blue text in his post 1152, but that is not even true. I originally left out the reason he gave starting with "because..." but I have now added it in red to this post as I can still edit it.(I left that "because ..." text and other parts of his post out) for two reasons: ...
Call me a lier once more (the third time) about how accurately I quoted your post 997 without giving any quote of where I even distorted your post 997 in my post 1151 and I will report you and ask that you be banded for at least three days.

16. Originally Posted by Billy T
Did you forget to quote showing where my post 1151 quote of your 997 has distorion? I.e. tell what is not exactly quoted as you posted in 997?If you could accurately read, there can be no misunderstanding I clearly stated that after your post 1152 I added the red text to post 1151. Here that statment in post 1151 is:
Speaking of "Duck and Weave".

Here is your statement from 1151:

Originally Posted by Billy T:"Yes you have in post 997 and many earlier ones, not worth going back to find. You make many "stupid" (to reuse your own words) asserting and also you make many physic errors, BOTH in only 997 where you DO state there is an "illusion of motion", and C is not constant, that I will again expose and correct:
You have wrongfully said I have claimed "VELOCITY" is an "Illusion of Motion". This post attempts to reassert that false innuendo.

17. Originally Posted by MacM
... You have wrongfully said I have claimed "VELOCITY" is an "Illusion of Motion". ...
Yes, I think I did ONCE accidently and wrongly say the you asserted "VELOCITY" is an "Illusion of Motion" instead of saying that you called "time dilation" an illusion of motion. However you are again lying or at least still trying to duck and weave as that was not in post 1151, but much earlier, many pages back.

What difference does this make? Neither is an "illusion of motion." I should have gone back to see which of these two nonsense statement you made, but I just relied on my memory. Again as both are nonsense, what difference does it make? It is totaly unrelated to whether or not I accurately quoted your post 997 in my post 1151.

I was only trying to cite another nonsense statement yours.

The simple fact you have been trying to duck and weave around is that you said (in post 1150) you NEVER said something was an "illusion of motion." And I said (in post 1151): "Yes you did." and quoted your doing so in post 997. I had said (in post 1147) that motion was real, not an illuision - that even a child could see it.

I will not go back and find one of your posts where you identify two different types of motion - the real one (or whatevery you are now calling it) causes SR effects. The other motion is only an illusion of motion and does not cause SR effects. Normally only the frame that was accelerated away for your common rest frame has "real motion" / SR effects, but the "rest frame" does not. You deny that SR has reciprocity but admit there are SR effects in one of the two frame currently separating from each other at speed S. You pick out which one this separation speed S procuces SR effect in by consideration of their past history - Standard SR has no need to know their past history and you think this is wrong.

SUMMARY: any time you call anything an "ilusion of motion" as if the motion was not real, or some how different from the motion that causes SR effects, I will try to correct you. SR has recprocity.

18. Originally Posted by Billy T
Yes, I think I did ONCE accidently and wrongly say the you asserted "VELOCITY" is an "Illusion of Motion" instead of saying that you called "time dilation" an illusion of motion.
Thank you for that clarification.

Originally Posted by Billy T
However you are again lying or at least still trying to duck and weave as that was not in post 1151, but much earlier, many pages back.
I have no idea what you are claiming here. You would have to be specific so that I can properly refute your accusation.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[What difference does this make? Neither is an "illusion of motion."
That is your wrongful opinion but it is not supported by empirical data.

My view that it IS an "Illusion of Motion" IS supported by the fact that reciprocity disappears once relative velocity ends and the view by the accelerated traveling clock that the resting clock is dilated is no longer demonstrated.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[I should have gone back to see which of these two nonsense statement you made, but I just relied on my memory. Again as both are nonsense, what difference does it make? It is totaly unrelated to whether or not I accurately quoted your post 997 in my post 1151.
Speaking of waffel and weave. Of course it is important. I either said what you assert I said or I didn't and I DID NOT.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[I was only trying to cite another nonsense statement yours.
But you haven't you have only posted your own misinterpreted and distorted versions of my posts and argue against your own false conclusions.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[The simple fact you have been trying to duck and weave around is that you said (in post 1150) you NEVER said something was an "illusion of motion." And I said (in post 1151): "Yes you did." and quoted your doing so in post 997. I had said (in post 1147) that motion was real, not an illuision - that even a child could see it.
And I clearly pointed out that I had never said motion was an illusion as you have admitted above. So you continue to try and confuse people about what has been szid for no uuseful purpose.

It would be like me saying you have said "it". Yes I have said "Illusion of Motion" but it was a description of an affect. Out of context the statment has no meaning. Just as "it" which I'm rather sure you have said sometime in your life has no meaning by itself.

You are wasting our time with nonsense rather than addressing the issue.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[I will not go back and find one of your posts where you identify two different types of motion - the real one (or whatevery you are now calling it) causes SR effects.
I have used the term "Actual Velocity" vs "Relative Velocity" to distinguish who accelerated (switched frames).

I do not use "Switched Frames" because it deliberately attempts or at least ignores that to switch frames one must accelerate and it is the physical acceleration of your frame which changes absolute velocity (energy) that causes relavistic affects , not mere relative velocity procuced to other clocks by acceleration.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[The other motion is only an illusion of motion and does not cause SR effects.
Ah. I see your confusion but it is of your own making. You are attempting to label relative velocity as an illusion of motion but I have never said that and would not. Relative velocity is relative velocity. Relative velocity is real but it is not velocity of the resting frame . Actual velocity the cause of time dilation and it is the "Percieved" time dilation while in relative motion that is the "Illusion of Motion" not the relative motion causing it.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[ Normally only the frame that was accelerated away for your common rest frame has "real motion" / SR effects, but the "rest frame" does not. You deny that SR has reciprocity but admit there are SR effects in one of the two frame currently separating from each other at speed S. You pick out which one this separation speed S procuces SR effect in by consideration of their past history - Standard SR has no need to know their past history and you think this is wrong.
I know it is wrong and so do you. You have absolutely NO emprical data supporting the arguement that the rest frame physically dilates or physically contracts.

Originally Posted by Billy T
[SUMMARY: any time you call anything an "ilusion of motion" as if the motion was not real, or some how different from the motion that causes SR effects, I will try to correct you. SR has recprocity.
I have always acknowledged that during relative motion one can "See", "Percieve" mutual time dilation. I have also and again do so now argued that that such time dilation is an "Illusion of Motion" because it vanishes once the motion terminates.

I have pointed out that the only "True" time dilation that would cause one twin to become younger in the final analysis is the frame that accelerted and had "Actual Velocity".

Now just where do you think I have sated anything not fully supported by empirical data. Just because you don't like pointing out the fact that part of SR is not physical reality is your problem because that part is nothing but illusion.

NOW YOU STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO MY CLAIM OF FALSIFICATION OF SR. WHY NOT? I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD BE ALL OVER THAT WITH A STICK. PERHAPS YOU ARE STUMPED FOR A RESPONSE.

FALSIFICATION CLAIM:

IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then your clock has not changed tick rate; hence must be still ticking in sync with the resting clock such that both clocks record the same accumulated time for the trip and no time dilation will have occured.

Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's assertion that there is spatial distance contraction hence falsifies SR.

Ill make it easy for you I'll break it down into small baby steps for the slow learners. Then tell me which piece is false.

1 - IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then your clock has not changed tick rate;

2 - hence must be still ticking in sync with the resting clock such that both clocks record the same accumulated time for the trip

3 - and no time dilation will have occured.

4 - Since that is inconsistant with empirical data it falsifies SR's assertion that there is spatial distance contraction hence falsifies SR.

GOOD LUCK YOU NEED IT.

19. Originally Posted by MacM
IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then your clock has not changed tick rate
The second half of this statement you keep repeating doesn't follow from the first half.
An equivalent statement to yours is "if you travel the same distance in the same time, then your clock has not changed tick rate". No. If you travel the same distance in the same time, all you can say is that your speed was the same (speed = distance/time). It says nothing about the "tick rate" of your clock.

In ANY single reference frame, if measurements of distance and time are made, then speed will always equal distance divided by time, because that's what we mean by "speed". There's nothing about tick rates of clocks in this definition. There's no relativity, in fact, because we're talking about things happening in a single frame of reference.

The only way to compare "tick rates" of clocks is to compare measurements made in at least two different frames of reference. But then you have to be very careful not to mix your frames up - i.e. don't use the rulers of one frame and the clocks of a different frame or you'll obviously get the wrong value for the speed.

In the case of the twin "paradox", take a distance of 1 light year in the ground frame. In that frame, a spaceship is observed to travel at 0.866c (Lorentz factor = 2) and it takes the spaceship 1.15 years according to the ground clocks to travel the distance.

An observer in the spaceship measures the length of the trip to be 0.5 light years and notices the start and end points of trip travelling at 0.866c relative to the spaceship. The time taken for the trip according to the spaceship clocks is

time = distance/speed = 0.5 ly/0.866c = 0.577 years

which is exactly half the time measured by the ground clocks.

So, here we have an example where the spaceship measures half the distance and half the time of the ground clocks for the same trip. Both observers calculate the same speed. In the ground frame, the spaceship is moving; in the spaceship frame the ground is moving at the same speed but in the opposite direction.

Question: Did the spaceship clock "change tick rate"? Or, more accurately, did the spaceship clock tick slower or faster than the ground clock, according to the ground observer?

Answer: Since the spaceship clock "accumulated" half the time of the ground clocks for the same trip, the spaceship clock must have been ticking at half the rate of the spaceship clock, as measured by the ground observer.

Also, this could easily be confirmed by the spaceship clock sending regular signals back to a ground observer, say at intervals of 1 second as measured by the spaceship clock. These signals will be received at 2 seconds apart as measured by the ground clock.

20. Originally Posted by James R
The second half of this statement you keep repeating doesn't follow from the first half.

An equivalent statement to yours is "if you travel the same distance in the same time, then your clock has not changed tick rate". No. If you travel the same distance in the same time, all you can say is that your speed was the same (speed = distance/time). It says nothing about the "tick rate" of your clock.
Blatantly false.

Originally Posted by James R
In ANY single reference frame, if measurements of distance and time are made, then speed will always equal distance divided by time, because that's what we mean by "speed".
Where v is speed in your above statement> I of course havenumerous time pointed out that v = d/t; which is all you are saying.

Originally Posted by James R
There's nothing about tick rates of clocks in this definition. There's no relativity, in fact, because we're talking about things happening in a single frame of reference.
Oh gee now tick rate has nothing to do with how fast a clock will accumulated time in the v = d/t formula. What planet are you from?

Originally Posted by James R
The only way to compare "tick rates" of clocks is to compare measurements made in at least two different frames of reference. But then you have to be very careful not to mix your frames up - i.e. don't use the rulers of one frame and the clocks of a different frame or you'll obviously get the wrong value for the speed.
This is a clever but flase premis to insure one cannot rretain the stipulateed tick rate of a clock declared dilated once you change frames and want to then claim distance contracted. You may be a fool I am not. If a clock is tick dilated it is tick dilated in all frames.

Physical reality is not subject to observer perception.

Since you are merely trying to recite SR theory I will not waste time correcting your continued physics claims.

FACT:

....................................... Resting Clock
A..............................................B.. ............................................A01234 56789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234 567890

...............Traveling Clock
A......................B.......................A
0123456789012345678901234567890

Making the same trip in the twins from A -> B and back to A according to the resting twin takes 6 decades of time according to SR.

For the traveling twin it is claimed distance contracts and his clock only accumulates 3 decades of time for the same trip.

It can be seen without any room for discussion that that is bogus physics because during such travel both clocks are ticking in unison and the resting clock can only accumulate 3 decades time by the time the twin returns. -PERIOD. You waste our time with your nonsense.

Yes what you say is what SR claims but it is shown to be false physically.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•