07-10-09, 09:02 AM #121
Hi geistkiesel & welcome back to the "SR wars." I assume you are on MacM's side or even more anti- SR as I recall you think the "absolute reference frame" not only exist but can be discovered. Is that your current POV?
Please take a look at post 118 where I think I have, using only "MacM approved" analysis proceedures, shown MacM's SR is self contradictory. I would welcome your comments.
07-10-09, 10:02 PM #122
Nothing you have said is relevant to MacM's complaints about special relativity. Take it to another thread, please.
07-13-09, 04:20 PM #123
07-13-09, 06:31 PM #124
But as for that part of your post now highlighted in red.
[/b]Absolutely not[/b][color] your habit of extrapolating your comments beyond any factual basis and making negative innuendo does not grant you a superiority position. It shows you to be weak and apprehensive discussing the issue.
Bull S....: You can pretend your favorite theory is soundly based it is BS.
1 - The bells still ring at 3,000 hz.
2 - Your hearing a different frequency has to do with your added velocity.
V1 + V2 = 1,100 fps + 88 fps = 1,188 fps.
The shift in apparent frequency is not a changed in the bells vibrations but 240 hz added by your motion.
1 = The ECI [colo=red]IS a preferred frame since it does not allow reciprocity. It is infact a locally absolute frame. Both facts which you historically and apparently still wish to ignore.
Further this is not just a Macm idea several hundred indeed over a thousand scientist agree - just not those advocating SR.
************* Extract ************************
In the meantime, I received several interesting papers by Ruyong Wang at St.Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, discussing how the observed operation of the Global Positioning System violates two of Special Relativity Theory's (SRT) fundamental principles.
Basically, GPS equations show that (1) Signal speed is independent of the sources translational motion relative to the Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) frame if the receiver is stationary. (2) Speed is dependent on the receiver's translational motion relative to the ECI frame if the source is stationary. (3) Speeds are different for reference frames moving uniformly relative to the ECI.
Therefore, the ECI frame is a preferred frame near the Earth, contradicting the principles of there being no preferred frame, and of the constancy of the velocity of light. (In line, however, with alternative models described in the sources above, in which the Earth's gravitational or magnetic field in face constitutes a local "ether" that the speed of light is constant with respect to.)
************************ End ********************8
****************************** Extract ***************
Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to the frame—but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that frame. When a GPS receiver changes its translation speed relative to the ECI frame, the speed of light measured relative to the receiver changes. A crucial experiment of the constancy of the speed of light relative to a moving receiver could be conducted in the following way: Let two GPS satellites and two airplanes be positioned in a straight line. Let the two airplanes travel at the same speed directly toward one of the two satellites and directly away from the other satellite. The travel time differences of GPS signals arriving at the two airplanes is measured and recorded with the airplanes flying first toward one of the satellites and then flying the opposite direction toward the other satellite. The travel time differences obtained as the airplanes fly in opposite directions are compared. If the travel time difference is the same when the velocity of the airplanes is changed, then the speed of light is indeed constant relative to the moving airplanes, otherwise it is not. The calculation using the GPS range equation and the results of a Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS test have shown that the constancy of the speed of light relative to moving airplanes is not correct. The change of the time difference could reach about 10 ns for subsonic airplanes and 30 ns for supersonic airplanes. The result of this crucial experiment is not only important scientifically, but also indicates the possibility of a new way to directly measure vehicle speed relative to the ECI frame.
*************************** End *************************
And let us all not forget the great flip flops in past discussions.
James R asserted that GPS used both SR and GR. But then later argued that orbit is constant acceleration and hence , not inertial and SR didn't apply therefore my claims had nothing to do with SR.
Which is it James?
1 - Does GPS use SR?
2 - Is orbit inertial, it is a form of acceleration?
3 - If orbit is not inertial then SR doesn't apply.
4 - But orbit is a form of free fall and free fall is also considered inertial.
5 - The fact is that SR is not even valid theory since it can't be tested or do you have a practical proposal where we can equip a rocket or something and reach 0.8c and then emperically show that the lab clock on earth changed tick rate as a result.?
I didn't say "Appeared" to change tick rate, I said "Changed" tick rate.
Pick your answer carefully because I can post different opinions by other scientists.
But you have always held the poistion that it did matter who says what and what their education , experiences, etc is if they disagree with your view then they are wrong.
07-13-09, 06:33 PM #125
I hope my response to James R clairifies. The problem is that what James wants to call reality is the perception of a moving observer in complete disregard of what emperical data (and common sense) supports. When two clocks are at common rest and one "Switches Frames" they have relative velocity and both may "See" the other as dilated but the fact is only the one that accelerated so as to switch frames is.
It does not matter which frame you collect your data in. James might suggest otherwise but it doesn't. That is I can have "A" & "B" where "A" accelerates to 0.8c for 10 hours according to "B". I have established scenarios where this is confirmed by direct comparision of clock accumulated time in the subsequent common "B" frame.
James falsely want to claim that readng is frame dependant. IT IS NOT.
Consider two particles with precise decay times as clocks. (this is a bit hypothetical since particle decay is a statistical half-life). But we could justify this by simply stating that we shall use sufficient number of particles in each group to represent a clock. Statistically then a % the particles will have decayed,etc.
Now since the "A" group only acculumated 6 hours decay %, we can fire a second group to 0.8c almost instantly (close enough that the several hour test makes acceleration time negliable) and guess what when compared in the "A" frame "A" will still only have 6 hours decay while the "B" group still has 10 hours decay.
[QUOTE=James R;2304324]t matters NOT which frame you do you direct comparison, when direct compared the reality was the local tick rate as a function of who had motion due to acceleration and for what period or duration. Not a matter of the "Perception" of observers whicle in motion or of what frame you compare in.
Last edited by MacM; 07-13-09 at 06:51 PM.
07-13-09, 08:16 PM #126
Sorry to hear you were in the hospital again. - I missed news of the first time. Hope you are OK now.
Can you find a flaw in post 118 (i.e. where I did not follow your SR proceedures.)? If yes, please be specific as to where - quote my error and correct it if you can.
07-13-09, 08:36 PM #127
What you're claiming, essentially, is that church bells or police car sirens or whatever only have a "real" frequency in their rest frames, and that everything else is "illusion of motion". In that case, to be consistent, you ought to say that every inertial object has a "real" tick rate which is its proper time in its rest frame, and everything else is "illusion of motion".
However, when it comes to time dilation etc., you attempt to introduce a whole lot of extraneous factors to determine the "real" frame. No longer is the "real" frame always the rest frame for you, but now we supposedly have to look for a "common local rest frame". Let's discuss the problem with this in the context of the Doppler effect for sound.
A police car is parked next to a church. The bells and the car's siren have particular frequencies in this frame, which we can call the "common local rest frame" of the car and church.
Now, the police car accelerates to 100 mph. A person in the police car hears the siren sounding at the same frequency as when the car was at rest. However, the driver is not in the "common local rest frame", but in the moving frame of the car.
Question: is the frequency the driver hears an "illusion of motion"?
A person is standing next to the church, watching the car drive away. He hears a lower siren frequency. Is this person hearing an "illusion of motion"?
If the driver is hearing the "real" frequency, why is this frequency not referenced to the "common local rest frame" anymore?
Oh my. You don't want to discuss GPS because I made you look ignorant and stupid before.
So, please answer the above questions.
07-13-09, 10:51 PM #128
Time dilation is the result of constant light speed which is
independent of its source. Look at the formula for gamma and see
only one factor, the ratio of v to c, with v being the speed of
the object. The light clock examples show this graphically. The
longer time unit includes time required to compensate for the
motion of the object/observer.
Calculate the time dilation in the fixed frame of the emission of
a photon (the event does not move), for two objects.
Now you can eliminate the common time frame and form a relative
expression between the two objects, and it appears the dilation
depends on the relative difference in speeds!
The problem in the example debated is proving C is not moving.
Given three observers moving along the x axis, away from a common
position D. Speeds for A, B, C are, .71, -.45, .20, respectively.
C will measure the speeds for A and B as .6 and -.6 respectively.
Time dilation (1/gamma) for A, B, and C are .7, .9, and .98
A and B are moving at the same speed relative to C, but have
different clock rates.
07-13-09, 11:05 PM #129
07-14-09, 12:06 AM #130
You have not proven me wrong you are helping prove me right unless you can explain how either clock knows to increase tick rate physically instead of becoming dilated all as a function of the same motion.
Also read carefully my presentation about using radioactive particles as statistical clocks. I have shown that the clocks tick rate is not frame dependant. Regardless of the frame where the % decay is compared "A" or "B" frame the results are the same. So the physical reality is not frame dependant.
This can be made even more clear by adding control signals to the tests.
1 - "A" accelerates to 0.8c, in a ignorably short period vs the velocity affect test duration, and then becomes inertial for 10 hours according to the lab clock (frame C).
Knowing the distance and velocity of "A" from "C" , "B" which remained at rest transmits a test stop control signal to "A" to arrive after 10 hours "B's" time.
At which time "A" transmits a digital signal back to "B" as to it's % of decay.
After 10 hours "B's" time "B" records it's % decay. Upon receipt of the "A" % decay data "B" computes and transmits to the universe the accumulated time ratio by "B" accumulated time / "A" accumulated time by convertion of hours from the known linear decay rates of the isotopes and that ratio would be 10 hours / 6 hours = 1.59259...... .
This data is computed in the "C" & "B" frame.
2 - Now perform the same test but have "B" accelerate to 0.8c,in a ignorably short period immedialtely before the 10 hour duration in "C" frame. Now in a common inertial frame both "A" and "B" are moving at 0.8c relative to the lab "C". "B" records it's % decay as soon as it goes inertial and when receiving "A's" signal you will find that the computed ratio is still 10 hours / 6 hours with the ratio being 1.59259.....
In other words the reality of time dilation is not frame dependant but depends ONLY on which frame actually had velocity and for what duration by any inertial time standard - that is "C" may also be inertial to other frames.
If I were monitoring the test while moving relative to "C" frame (the lab) I would not agree that the test took 10 hours but the accumulated data of the cocks and the transmitted ratio in both cases is not affected by my relative motion to the test.
I would percieve a different result - i.e. 5 hours / 3 hours = 1.59259 ratio (ignoring that time dilation is a non-linear function).
07-14-09, 12:09 AM #131
07-14-09, 12:20 AM #132
07-14-09, 12:29 AM #133
It matters not if "A" and "B" were launched in a co-moving direction and had no relative velocity to each other OR in opposite directions so as to have a maximum relative velocity between them.
The mere relative velocity between such clocks is irrelevant time dilation is only relative to the common rest frame.
07-14-09, 04:09 AM #134
If the driver is hearing the "real" frequency, why is this frequency not referenced to the "common local rest frame" anymore?
So, why does the driver of the car still hear the "real" frequency of the siren, and not the "illusion of motion" frequency? I thought accelerating away from a common local rest frame was supposed to mean that your perception was not "reality" any more.
07-14-09, 05:05 AM #135
I will admit that I have a hard time understanding this as it is outside my field of work. I do have a question. If A = earth, B ship #1 and C ship #2. If B and C are launched from earth in opposite directions, 180 degrees apart, with both ships eventual speed reaching 0.7c relative to earth, but relative to each other they should be 1.4c as an observer on earth. Thus A light beam from ship and and ship B would be able to reach earth not would not be able to reach each other. I dont think I am stating this right but you get the gest. What about the clocks, relative to earth as well as each other...
07-14-09, 08:56 AM #136
? The only correct physical frame is the local proper frame. The driver and the church are in two different frames. As you and SR claim the drivers watch still ticks at it's local proper tick rate but unlike you and SR claim that tick rate is no longer physically the same as the observer still standing at the church's tick rate.
You claim two different things about the drivers tick rate. you claim it is dilated because he switched frames but then you turn around and claim indirectly that it and the church tick in unison which is what artifically generates the requirement that in the drivers frame distance has contracted.
Emperical data shows the drivers clock was in fact dilated and accumulated less time which means the trip time recorded by the driver is only correctly accounted for if distance remained fixed in all frames.
Your Texas Two Step is by introducing a very logical (but in error) idea. That is that relative velocity is symmetrical. That is if I am moving away from you at 60 Mph you are moving away from me at 60 Mph.
Just as time is immeasurably affected at everyday velocity so is relative veloicty and it is perfectly ok to consider relative velocity as being symmetrical at everyday speeds.
But when you become relavistic and begin to measureably affect clock tick rates that is no longer true. Velocity is a "Computed" value based on the ratio of two properties: V = Delta Distance / Delta Time or v = ds/dt.
At relavistic velocities emperical data shows that t1 does not equal t2 and therefore.
v1 = ds/dt1
v2 = ds/dt2
v1 does not equal v2. That is the computed velocity by each observer will be different because their clocks accumulated time for the trip, over a common fixed distance, as taking different amounts of time. This is the propr physical view, not that distance changed because you can't tell your watch slowed down during the trip.
07-14-09, 12:04 PM #137
Your a fighter - so good luck. Unfortunately, it sounds like you will need it.
Years ago you had an idea for a better wind machine. As I recall your were thinking of getting a patent - You hoped to "Eat their cake" Did you ever get the patent? If yes, what is the number. If No, and you care to, PM me a little about it. I have always thought you very clever, both in your simple approaches to experiments on gravity and creation of defenses of your POV. For all I know you do have a good wind idea there too.
Last edited by Billy T; 07-14-09 at 12:38 PM.
07-14-09, 04:51 PM #138
07-14-09, 05:30 PM #139Originally Posted by MacM
Thanks for the concern and no I'm not OK, which is why I'm back kicking ars about SR. I have Stage 4 lung cancer. ...
Well good for you and go for it.
I hope your family is coping well.
Regarding your postion on Sound dopler issue of the two attributes displaying for each observer, that being local rest frame attributes and dare I say "remote" other frame attributes has something about it that has yet to be quantified adequately. I don't know what that is yet.
Physical tick rate vs observed tick rate the distinction between actual physical and observed physical, hmmmmm...something about it that sticks.
Either way best of luck and I hope you are not too uncomfortable and have the practical and emotional support you need at this time.
07-14-09, 05:45 PM #140
I have always held the belief I guess that the use of preferred reference frames in SR is a biased approach.
What I mean by prefferred is slightly different to normal interpretation.
If you have two objects traveling at relative velocity IMO it is illogical when considering that the space those two objects are in is effectively neutral and offers no resistance to their velocity, to ascribe velocity only to one of those objects and not equally to both objects.
i.e. There is no reason to take on the notion that one observer can unilaterally declare he is at rest and the other observer has all the velocity as he has no way of knowing what his velocity is except by reference to the other observer.
To say that the police car, in the example given, is moving away from the church and not that they are moving away from each other is a fundamental problem of logic IMO.
The reality of two objects in a vacuum is that the only logical conclusion one can derive is that both objects are undergoing closing or separating velocity in an equal fashion.
Just an old opinion that hasn't had any reason to change over the years.
[might help with this problem- never know]
By Gustav in forum SF Open GovernmentLast Post: 04-24-08, 01:27 AMReplies: 7
By Orleander in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PMReplies: 16
By Vern in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 05-05-07, 12:24 AMReplies: 43
By MacM in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 02-28-06, 03:20 AMReplies: 345