Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Actually, it would be those that are trying to explain this to you accepting you simply don't have the metal capacity to understand it, rather like the teacher sending the kid out of the classroom to stand in the hallway for the rest of the lesson. It certainly isn't because the kid has done everything asked of him is it?

This thread is now 64 pages long and it's been a train wreck since at least page 15. If I were the moderator here I would have locked it ages ago because it's obvious to me that either you are simply trolling or are another crackpot with a pet theory that doesn't work, predicts nothing and goes nowhere. SR on the other hand has revolutionised our view of the universe because it works - ie the predictions it makes are what is measured in experiment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it proves 0.5/0.5 /=/ 2

1/2 / 1/2 does not equal 2 it equal 1.

Now say you believe otherwise and we know your physics foundation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe that is why you aren't a mod.

And maybe that is why we don't see you post a rebuttal of my issue. You can't.

Where TT is Traveling Twin and RT is Resting Twin

.....___TT__...._RT
v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t = 1

and

0.5t = 0.5d/v = 0.5e/0.5t = 1

It is clear SR's assertion that the TT arrives home with 1/2 accumulated time compared to the RT is false.

Take off that attitude and post a valid rebuttal that is not just "SR says so" reply.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Except that's what experiments measure happens.

 

What about clock time dilation do you not understand? I have shown that time dilation occurs but it is because the clock IS dilated physically and physical conditions apply to all frames.

It is only by generating the ludicrus observer dependant physics where the clock is restored in the moving frame that length contraction gets asserted but as shown it fails to produce the results advocated for it. Another error for Einstein and those 100,000 smart guys you folks keep yapping about..

That is you stipulate it is dilted but then in the moving frame it isn't. If you retain it's tick dilated condition compared to the resting frame then everything matches empirical data.

Let me spell it out for the slow learners.

If I'm the accelerated frame and my clock is stipulated to be ticking at 1 tick to your resting clock's 2 ticks then in my prior example where the resting distance was 60 miles and you claim I took 1 hour hence 3,600 seconds your clock ticked 60 times per mile.

My clock ticks 30 times per mile because it is physically dilated. I can't tell that because it is my time standard and everything in my frame is based on it's tick tock. To me 1 second still seems to be 1 second but my second universally is twice the duration of your second.

Hence 60 miles times 30 ticks/mile = 1,800 ticks or 30 minutes on my clock when I arrive. That is what SR predicts and empirical data supports. There was NO length contraction involved.

 

Except that you, the person moving, sees 60 ticks per mile. You think your distances and times are right and so you must see from your perspective what the person at rest sees from his, that every mile is 60 ticks. But, as you admit, if the total journey takes 1800 ticks then you must have only covered 30 miles. 30 miles from your point of view. The person at rest sees the journey distance you made to be 60 miles. 60 ticks per mile, 60 miles, 3600 ticks. You see 60 of your ticks per one of your miles. 1800 ticks, which you admit it what you'd measure, means you must have seen yourself cover what you viewed to be 30 miles.

The person watching you move sees your measured time reduce due to time dilation effects. From your point of view you aren't time dilated but you have less distance to cover, hence you end up with less time than the person who didn't move.

SR predicts what we measure. You can't provide an experiment which contradicts SR. So your whining reduces entirely to "I don't like the sound of it so it's wrong". Oh no, something doesn't seem immediately obvious to someone whose relative has an IQ of 165. Quick, burn all the textbooks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You are half way there. You have conceeded both clocks are ticking in sync at 60 ticks / mile. Yes/No?

Now where you go wrong is you adapted SR's verbal assertion that the resting clock sees him complete the trip of 60 miles when the resting clock has accumulated 3,600 ticks.

But that does not happen because both clocks are ticking in sync such that when the traveling twin returns home the resting clock can only have accumulated the same 1,800 ticks. So SR's assertion is a falicy.

Unless you retain the traveling clocks dilated tick rate both clocks read 1,800 seconds when he returns.

If his clock is dilated as stipulated by the resting frame and distance does NOT contract then and ONLY then the resting clock will read 3,600 seconds and the traveling clock will read 1,800 seconds on his return.

I don't think insisting on theoretical stipulations of action having to match physical reality is whinning. Perhaps you are more liberal and the tooth fairy is real but I learned to stick with physical reality long ago. You should try it it is fun.

Now as to a test. Yes, I'm sure you, millions of others and I have all tested this billions of times. Every trip we have ever made by any method being horse and buggy to Concorde jet proves that:

Where TO is traveling observer and RO is Resting Observer

......___TO__..._RO_
v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t

Such that contracted distance is NOT time dilation.

 

On your part apparently so. But hopefully many others here have had there eyes opened and will actually look around and think before adapting heresay garbage as physics.

You have many times tried to throw it in my face that you teach relativity. You have asserted that no educated person would believe my view. You have asserted that my view is garbage.

Well I certainly can't make any stronger case than I have here that SR is trash plain and simple. To accept it one must completely ignore rational physics, abandon common sense and believe that .5+.5 = 2.0 and that 2+2 = 3.

That the mathematical construct is based on certain assertions about physics assumptions. I have shown, without doubt, that those assertions about length contraction are false. Hence SR is falsified.

You of course reject that and try to be-little it (me). But in reality all you have done is expose your indoctrination into luny land physics.

Lastly I have found another teacher of physics and of Special Relativity.

*******************************************************
Prof Richard Conn Henry - 202 Publications has taught physics for over 40 years.

http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue33/henry.htm

************Extract ************
................I have never found a single freshman physics textbook that teaches Minkowski spacetime; I have never found a single text on General Relativity that mentions "Einstein's two postulates." ..................
......................................
But the second of these postulates (the one concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!) did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a development from relativity—the discovery of the implication that E = mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human! ..............
........................................................
A small number of texts (Ohanian, Knight, a few others) at least follow Einstein’s
second paper in having but a single postulate; but none do what needs to be done, which
is to drop Einstein and adopt Minkowski.
.................................

http://msx4.pha.jhu.edu/henryDir/vitae.word.pdf

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

Noting of course he recommends trashing Einstein altogether because Special Relativity is invalid and he points to the 2nd postulate just as I do. So go ahead show people how you will now attack Prof Henry a highly educated and published man that has taught physics and Special Relativity likely many more years than yourself.

Show them how the truth is anybody that disagrees with you is a Crackpot. You sir are a joke.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1 - As I have attempted to make you understand your clinging to math is wrong in the first place, just as Henry says it is also.

2 - I have given you a specific case where the assertions by Einstein in Special Relativity are false mathematically and you still want to insist on the mathematical process.

Like you have just said this is a "Waste of time" FOR YOU but not for others.

 

As expected you can only trash the individual and only half read what was written. Of course he said trash SR that was a quote from the paper.

If you had clicked on the links provided you swould have had his resume and papers along with his teaching history but of soure you didn't bother since he has to be wrong and all you need do is attack him also.

He is a physics professor at a prestigius university and has taught for 40 years.

On balance none of this addresses the v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t issue. You sir have failed to support your theory with actual physics. and rely instead upon mere rhetoric of the theory and slandering those that disagree.

So your personal attacks are moot and baseless. I'll leave it at that.

 

Two correct statements from MacM in one sentence! - Break out the champaign!

Yes physics sometimes conflict with human rationality - it is based on experimental observations, not our ideas of how things should be.

For example, it is neither rational nor agreeable to "common sense" that every photon in the double slit interference pattern goes thru both slits. Nor is time dilation and space contraction in agreement with common sense. - They just comes mathematically from the two postulates that are well tested experimentally. Nor is it in accord with common sense and your daily experiencethat the Earth goes around the sun when every non-cloudy day you can watch the sun go around the Earth.

Too bad you only believe something is true if your common sense tells you it is OK, instead of math derived results from well tested facts, is true. Does idea of earth going around the sun still bother you?

 

Unfortunately for you Billy T is that in this case it is the math that doesn't hold up and logic does.

v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t = NO TIME DILATION. SR is a physical lie.

 

Like I have said you nmever read what is written you just blast away in the attack mode.

Just where do you see that I said that?

No you merely recite the erroneous SR rhetoric. That does not make the math error and physics impossibility go away.

 

About time.

Then you have a different view of english than I do.

I only have a hard time understanding why you don't understand the arguement about :

Gee and I would think you realized that saying computing space-time as one being real and the other as imaginary, sort of fits my arguement that mathematically the theory works but that it is not physically real and that it is the space contraction component that is not real.

He also is not thrilled with using the two postulates, and as I have argued, sees Einstein back away from his claim of light invariance.

I never said nor implied he was a UniKEF convert or had ever been exposed to my arguement for falsification. That is just more of your absurd false extrapolations to have something negative to post.

The fact is Minkowski is simular to SR in that it requires Flat Space-Time.
but it is not SR it has differences. That does not make it valid either when physics are violated. It only makes it useful knowing part of it is imaginary and has limited application.

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

Nevertheless, even in such cases, Minkowski space is still a good description in an infinitesimally small region surrounding any point (barring gravitational singularities).
************************************************

Now get real and post your solution about:

......___TT___...._RT_
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t

This basic simple mathematical expression shows that the two arguements posted in SR for what each observers experiences are in fact identical and NO time dilation occurs as a result of length contraction.

SR's assertion that the twin arrives back having recorded less time because he traveled less distance is a blatant error in physics. He ONLY records less time because his clock actually physically dilated and is dilated in all frames.

d = 1

tr = d / vr = 1 vr = d/tr = 1

tt = d / vt = 0.5 vt = d / 0.5 = 2

Relative velocity as used in SR is the universal absolute velocity which is symmetrical but local calculated velocity is not. As a local clock dilates the local observer must compute a different velocity.


A dilated clock works.

A...................................................B......................................A Trip Rest
0..........1............2............3............4.........5........6.........7......8 Rest Time
A...................................................B......................................A Travel Trip
0.......................1..........................2...................3..................4 Travel Time

Contraction of Distance does NOT. Clocks tick in synch and when twin returns home - Game over and Rest view is falsified.

A...................................................B......................................A Rest Trip
0..........1............2............3............4.........5........6.........7......8 Rest Time
A.......................B..........................A Travel Trip
0..........1............2............3............4 Travel Time

Extrapolating SR into scenarios involving light years distance through space CLEARLY is not applying it in an infinitesimally small region devoid of gravity.

It is out right BS promoting something that is merely useful under limited conditions recognizing that part of it is merely imaginary into some fabulous magical thing that simply does not exist.

You sir are nuts.

 

Math IS LOGIC - in it purest, most perfected form. Too bad you know so little about it.

 

Funny I at least can do v = 0.5d / 0.5t and get = d/t. Further more "Garbage in Garbage out" is a most apt saying in the case of SR rhetoric.

You verbally make statements that are not consistant with the math or physics.


I haven't seen you resolve this issue yet so why are you attacking me. Attack me when you post the correct answer first. Otherwise you look stupid and a spoiled sport.

.