Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by MacM, Jun 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Please do, but make them "mint condition." I''ll put them with my confederte dollars. Both will be worth more a time passes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Well philosophically, science is full of simplifying assumptions. If our experimental observations about light are best explained by the idea of something travelling continuously across space, then scientists will tend to stick to this explanation. Noone's seen an electron and proved it exists, everything's ultimately indirect. You can use this logic and go all the way down to the fundamental problems, which is where I bring up the Matrix movie analogy. How do we even know that our eyes are seeing what the detectors actually register, and that our brains are reliably interpreting what our eyes see? How do we know we even have eyes and it's not just an illusion? There's no such thing as a proof that doesn't make fundamental underlying assumptions to start with.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Hey that's actually a great idea! One day those Zimbabwean dollars will be worth something, as souvenirs from an insane period of crisis and torment. Buy 'em up now 'cuz they're cheaper than toilet paper!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    fair comment...agrees as it stands at the presnet moment given our current state of scientific understanding.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    see if you get this addon?

    "and make sure you wash the notes first" [chuckle]
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Its is bed time for me again so will get to your links tomorrow. Thanks, I think I can find them now.

    But before turning in I again remind you of Michelson measurement of the speed of light in his mile long vacuum tube of steel (beam folded to travel at least 20 miles) It was at the time at least the very best determination of c in vacuum.

    Possible the laser reflectors left on the moon and modern pico second timing are much better now, but we would need to get someone like Janus 58 in on this to make sure we know the distance to the moon very accrately too without knowing the speed of light or else fall in the circular reasoning trap like MacM has:

    (He assumes each clock must have a "physic tick rate" for all frames independent of the "illusion of motion" and then concludes that SR is wrong as it states other than his assumption.)
     
  10. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    I think I know a happy middle ground for the two of you, although I'll admit I could definitely use more practice on the quantum field theory side of things. I believe quantum field theory would argue that at all times, the photon's wavefunction exists everywhere in the universe. The average value of its position would move through space at the speed of light, but there's nothing stopping the photon from making a random jump to the opposite end of the galaxy at any moment. Yet there is some debate as to whether the wavefunction implies that the photon itself exists everywhere, and some could argue that in fact the photon exists entirely outside the apparatus altogether until the measurements are made. I think QM would say that, unless we find a way to beat the uncertainty principle, this question is impossible for us to answer through experiment.
     
  11. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Heh, gross

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    ahh so we may be able to have a better chat later...hmmmm I look forward to it...as I like your style and approach...
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    to me this implies a photonic ether in conception and I wonder if it is really necesary or whether it is because the scientists are attempting to accommodate the 2nd postulate in some way...IMO there needs to be a rather radical shift into spacial dimensionalism to make sold progress and that would mean dropping any notion of a traveling photon temporarilly to get into it.
    For example Gravity could be a product of dimensional collapse as the universe seeks entropy. [ all dimensions heading towards zero.]
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Not buying that. Structure is not a CAUSE. That is like saying coffee being in a cup makes it hot.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Unfortunately if he did he did not state that in his presentation regarding living organisims and one get younger due to flying around in space.

    Otherwise the issue of the "Twin Paradox" which lasted for years would never have arisen.

    You are still hung up on what observers in motion "Think" and not what is physical reality. Also you are merely reciting SR and not addressing the issue of failure to maintain the stipulated dilated condition of the traveling clock when computing v = ds/dt in the traveling frame. As I have pointed out now numerous times spatial contraction is nothing more than a fabrication to fit the theory and requires you ignore a stipulated dialted clcok when considering trip time. It is falacious shoddy physics - vodoo.

    None of which addresses my cars going between cities example of a time dilated clock measuring the trip and the consequences which is a compute higher veloicty not ashorter distance.

    I don't need to re-hear what SR claims for the 1,000th time. I want your rebuttal of physical points that have been presented.

    If so then he was not as smart as you seem to think becsue it took him years to respond to the "Twin" challenge.

    And so have I. But you have just said you refuse to address one key issue. That is the failure of there being any emperical evidence to support mere relative velocity as a cause of permanent time dilation. That is something different after there is no relative velocity.

    Do you conceed or just choose to dodge the issue (which is just cowardly concession).

    So he really wsn't as smart as you first suggested.? You make it sound like an obvious error.

    Actually I've read tht he actually did know. But I don't think either side has proof either way.

    What don't you understand that I have not challenged the results of any test or properly defined experiment.

    I challenge the assertion that relative velocity is the cause.

    I challenge that v = c is actully a physical limit although I suspect it is certainly well above a practical limit because at (1) molecule / m^3 in deep space the devastation caused by impact would be unsurvivable and create tremendous drag as well.

    That is like saying the entire universe went dark just because you went to sleep. Or it is bright red just because you put on red glasses. Not acceptable difinitions of reality.

    WEBSTER:

    Real - 1) existing or happening as or in fact ; actual; true; objectively so, etc.; not merely seeming, pretended, imagined, fictitious, , nominal, ostensible.

    Reality - 1) the quality or fact of being real

    What you percieve, seems or imagine is NOT fact; hence it is not reality.

     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    So tell us the cause of change in a resting clock due to relative velocity to an accelerated clock.

    Or admit that a resting clock has no cause to change physically and the only thing SR is doing with relative velocity is discussing "Illusions of motion".
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Just my opinion QQ but my impression is that for CptBork the theory is grounds to claim cause. That is Einstein said so, so it must be so.


    Unfortunately he refuses to look beyond what is being preached at school and to actually think independantly about physics and "Cause and Effect".

    The mere structure of the universe is not a cause. No more than a cup holding coffee causes it to be hot.
     
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    actually I disagree even though it may appear to be the case Cpt Bork is a bit more uhmmm....out spoken than that...just that we coud not communicate properly so I just put it aside for moment.
    He knows you cant quote theory as evidence of causation alone.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are more generous than me -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Pete in the other thread running along similar lines has indicated sigificant theoretical reason exists for the relativity of magnitude of accelleration [ not direction] and I have asked how magnitude can be applied to an object of mass without direction unless of course he is refering to accelerating the atomic structure of the object of mass by that magnitude.

    Which may eventually lead to the theoretical basis for all inertial objects of mass being subjected to change at a rate of 'c' which leads to dilation if exceeded by adding velocity [acceleration ] from rest.

    To physically maintain the invariance of change "c' the object must dilate in time...when accelerated from an inertial positon. [I think this was the underlying premise Lorentz worked with to develop his transfoms but am not sure] thus light invariance can be extended to actually be a way of indicating inertia [ universal constant ], however to do so means the light has to be 'inside the mass ' and not outside it. Hence my Photon Pig Challenge.
     
  21. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,460
    Sorry, but I just don't think you guys get it. Relativity assigns kinematic and dynamic variables to the system of interest, and then calculates how that system evolves over time, as seen from various inertial frames. Based on these calculations, we can then predict how various processes will affect our measuring devices, and where and when these things happen. Doesn't matter what sort of measuring device you use. For example, as a clock you could use a human being's aging process, a cuckoo clock, a stopwatch, a metronome... anything that reads time will be affected in the same way. If you don't like the philosophical concept of treating space and time as relative things, or don't like the idea that velocities are only relative and all inertial frames are equivalent, that's your prerogative. Unless you can demonstrate a mathematical inconsistency in relativity or a known phenomenon that completely disagrees with it, I don't think I have anything more I can discuss with you guys on this topic.

    Nowhere in any of my equations have I made any reference to absolute motion or the need for it, and the acceleration history is irrelevant as well, only relative velocity matters here. As far as evidence goes, like I said particle lifetime measurements at different velocities make a great example, and it's easy to show that the acceleration history is irrelevant here too. Please read carefully through my most recent description of how the experiment shows that only relative velocity counts. Since the Earth is orbiting the sun, I don't think there's any reason to think we might happen to be in an absolute frame of rest, but it doesn't matter whatsoever what time of year you do the experiment. So at this point I guess if your objections are philosophical, I can't get you to accept concepts you don't want to accept. If you have any mathematics you can use to demonstrate your points, that's all I'm willing to discuss for the remainder of this particular thread.
     
  22. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You keep saying "You haven't addressed the complaint!" or "That didn't answer the question!" when all you do is ignore everything anyone says to you and you yourself ignore any and all direct questions put to you. Practice what you preach.

    Given you claim to have worked on this stuff for 20 years but in all that time you have not once opened a book on relativity it seems unlikely that if I give you a reference where you can read about the causal structure of relativistic space-time you'll bother to read it.

    For instance, Schutz 'A First Course in General Relativity' and Stewart 'General Relativity' both spend considerable time talking about special relativity and causal structures. Both available at a good library. But you and I both know you won't read them and even if you did you'd not understand.

    All you do is make proclaimations about a theory you admit you've never read.
     
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    read the bold type from your post and then read your post and then re-read the bold from your post and then if you still can't work out why you are doing all this re-reading you'll just have to re-read the bold type again....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page