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
    His POV is stated by me in 92 and confirmed by him in post 93. Then in post 118 I used only his confirmed methodology to show it is self contradictory. Why not look at either post 92 or 93 if you want to see MacM's POV more precisely stated, using the symbols I introduced which correspond to his words?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Like others have said, QQ, this is nonsense. What keeps the plane flying is the speed of air over the wings. It makes no difference whether the plane is still and the air is moving, or vice versa, or whether both are moving in some way.

    Consider a plane flying west. Is it moving forward or backward? Does what the pilot thinks make any difference?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Yes his clock ticks at HIS proper rate but where we disagree is you then claim relative velocity is symmetrical which is simply a common sense everyday logical view which turns around and ignores the affects of relativity and emperical data where you have declared his frame is dilated.

    That v1 = v2 and v = ds/dt then ds = v * dt and with different accumulated t you advocate distance foreshortened.

    The simple fact is physically v = ds/dt where dt is fixed and dt based on proper tick rates. Velocity is a computed value of two SR physical components delta distance /delta time (based on proper dilated time to it
    's rest reference.

    Hence: Where computed trip times are based on "A" in motion, "B" at rest, ds = 1lyr "A&B" frame miles, dta=2 years and dtb = 1.547 years.

    va = ds /dta = 1 lyr / 2 years = 0.5c
    vb = ds /dtb = 1 lyr / 1.1547 years = 0.866c

    You don't. What you should know is that EITHER time dilation is a physically real phenomena or it is somehow ilusionary. If it is physically real for the moving clock (which emperical data strongly suggests is true) then you must retain the respective trick rates when you compute the opposing view (other frame). It is clearly improper to assert a clock ticks slow in one frame but then use the same tick rate when computing from the other frame.

    If you retain as physical the dilated tick rate then distance cannot foreshorten because trip time is properly accounted for by accumulated time. The difference is that as "Counter Intuitive" as it might be relative veloicty is not symmetrical at relavistic speeds becasue SR alters the proper tick rate standards between frames. and using the proper comparative tick rates as dt ds remains fixed and v is computed differently.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    23,328
    As also posted elsewhere the gedanken isn't about air speed or even what keeps the plane flying it is about what information the pilot can gain only from doppler effects demonstrated with regards to the other plane...[ no other information is available to him]
    removing the need for a preferred observer and use only closing and separating velocity only which I think is what is being put forward by MacM to solve the two clocks slower than each other connundrum.
     
  8. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Then why did you say he would plummet to the ground and crash?
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    ... and why did you say "...he simply can't seriously consider himself as having zero velocity as his plane is still flying...."?
     
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    just to show that the pilot at least knows he is actually flying as is the other plane....unecessary complication in reaction to another posters comments...sorry for misleading you.
    as it is only doppler information available the notion that he is at rest and the other plane is all that is flying is emphasised and as you can see it didn't help one iota..
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and post #160 is not much better...
     
  12. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    How could he gain any information other than closure (or opening) rate?

    Okay, here's a slight modification.
    This is 100% true except for the addition of the second aircraft.
    Many years ago I went to the National Aircraft Recognition Finals: and it was one of the windiest days I've ever known.
    Nevertheless one brave (or foolhardy) soul decided he was going up in his glider...
    Once he'd dropped the tow the poor guy found that, unless he was nose-down (at around 20 degrees or so from horizontal) he couldn't move forwards relative to the ground.
    If his nose came up higher than that he actually hovered on the spot, if he raised the nose above the horizontal he was literally flying backwards (at a good 20 knots or so!) relative to the ground and all us guys watching open-mouthed through the window.
    If there'd been a powered aircraft approaching him and using doppler, what could either of them say about the motion without reference to the ground?

    If you have two aircraft approaching each other which one is moving?
    Moving relative to what?
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MacM:

    But that's not what you were saying earlier. Here you seem to be saying that the tick rate observed by the driver of the car of his own clock is that clock's REAL tick rate. But earlier, when we did spaceship A accelerating away from C, you said that A's REAL tick rate was the same rate as C's clock.

    I point out that your claim that velocities are not symmetrical is, on the face of it, ridiculous. If you drive away from me at 60 mph, then I will be moving away from you at 60 mph also.

    Let's summarise: in Einstein's relativity, we have agreement on relative velocities, but times and distances change between frames.

    In your fantasy MacM world, we have agreement on distances, but relative velocities and times change between frames.

    In addition, I note that relative is self-consistent mathematically and logically, whereas MacM fantasyphysics is inconsistent, muddled and nonsensical.

    Perhaps you can explain to me what we are supposed to gain by swapping length contraction for MacM's new "velocity dilation" or "velocity contraction", or whatever new name you want to use for this.

    I thought your theory was supposed to match common-sense reality better than relativity. But in fact you've just swapped out one bit of common sense for another.

    Is velocity physically real, or illusionary?
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    As I mentioned earlier I feel that MacM is attempting to prove that the preferred observer system that SRT employs when taking on an observers reference frame is inequitable and logically unsound.
    I beleive that MAcM is claiming that whilst SR is used to do the math from the entire gedanken overview POV, the observers them selves use Lorentz relativity to do theirs so the claim that MacM is making could be narrowed down to SR mixing theories and thus ending up with time dilation of each clock being slower than the other which is according to MacM an impossibility.

    so by temporarilly looking at the situation with out using a preferred observer to do the calculations and maintaining a symetrical approach to who has what velocity you will find most likely how this problem is demonstrated.
    By including lorentz relativity in SR you end up with this time dilation issue

    so either stick to relative velocity or use Lorentz absolutes but don't use both...is I think what MacM is all about in his complaint.

    Maybe he would care to agree or disagree....
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    From the doppler readings, the pilot can tell the relative velocity between her plane and other planes. She can't tell anything more about her movement or lack thereof than that.

    The way the pilot thinks of her movement will vary depending on her particular purpose. When she reaches for something in the cabin, she will naturally behave as if the plane is at rest.
    When she handles the plane, she will probably think in the frame of reference of the surrounding air.
    When she considers navigation, she will need to think in the ground frame (which will show up on her GPS or doppler from ground stations).
    When she considers collision hazards between her plane and others, she will probably (but not necessarily) think in the reference frame of her plane (which of those dots on the radar are approaching the centre?)
    But if she considers collision hazards between two other planes, she might consider the reference frame of one of the other planes
    If she lands on a moving aircraft carrier, that is another obvious reference frame of interest.

    Do you see that she can freely choose whatever reference frame suits her purpose? That she is not forced to use any given reference frame?
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2009
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    In one sense you have it right but overall I'm afraid I must agree with Pete.

    1 - The pilot assuming he is at rest and considering only radar between aircraft would mathematically at least claim he must plumet. However;

    2 - If he sees the other aircraft with motion even though Radar, Radar can track air movement via particles or moisture, ect., in the air and in his case he would see that the other aircraft had a velocity in air which is why he is flying, he would also see that he was moving through air and flying and not falling.

    However these are technicalities which really aren't part of your point and your point is mathematically technically correct. If he had no other information then SR claims he can claim to be at rest which is (as is most of SR) ludricrus.
     
  17. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    No.
    As I previously mentioned.

    If he can see that sort of stuff the radar would be so full of clutter it would be pointless carrying one.
    Radars do not generally (if at all) give any indication of motion with regard to the air.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are 100% correct. The simple fact is that the way they apply SR is a form of LR and that is to consider who has actual velocity by imploying frame switching, not merely relative velocity.

    The only reason I can see for calling it frame switching is to NOT acknolwdge that to switch frames you must experience F = ma by acceleration for some period or duration thereby causing a change in actual velocity in an absolute sense to your rest frame. That is to have actual velocity and not merely relative velocity.

    They never actually use the SR assertion that either can be considered at rest where the resting clock is viewed by the traveling clock as having the velocity and being the dilated clock . That is just rhetoric and BS propagation.

    There is no emperical data to support the argument that the resting clock dilates. It is totally irrational and physically impossible. It is possible to have an illusion of motion where one might percieve that each is ticking slower but the emperical data only supports that the one with actual motion does.

    They (James R) claims the SR assertion and illusion is physically real but has not and cannot be tested. That is an interseting postion since:

    1 - If it is untestable then SR is falsified as a valid theory. A theory must be testable to be valid but;

    2 - he asserts the affect is there and that time dilation in both frames is real and is frame dependant because SR says so.

    The problem here is I believe that the scenario I posted using radioactive particle decay rates as atomic clocks and then using identical delayed accelerations of negligable duration compared to inertial relative velocity period of test, shows that comparison of the accumulated % decomposition of each clock is the same if both are read in either frame subsequent to having had relative velocity between them during the test period. That is "A" & "B" can be read in the "B" frame and shows that "A" has decomposed less having had actual velocity. Likewise "B" can be moved into the "A" frame and the comparison of % decomposition results are precisely the same.

    It completely blows the frame dependant result arguement because reading the % decomposition in either frame is the same.

    Dilation is NOT frame dependant as claimed (but untested and hince physical reality is therefore relative velocity is NOT symmetrical at relavistic speeds because each observer is using a different time tick rate standard to measure the trip time and the trip time is only valid if distance does NOT forshorten as claimed by SR.
     
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2009
  19. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    I don't think that "claim" is correct, in the sense you are using it.
    Galileo (and SR) says that the pilot can use any frame of reference he chooses. And as shown in the previous post, the pilot will usually use whatever frame of reference is most convenient for a particular purpose.

    So when he reaches for something in the cabin, he doesn't have to do anything differently depending on the speed of the plane - he can behave as if he is at rest. Is that ludicrous?
     
  20. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Not unless he assumes the air is also at rest. Why would he do that?
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Your verbal pronouncements are inadequate. Please show that given only relative velocity between planes and no other information you can show that the plane is not going to stall or plumet. Go ahead you made the assinine claim show it.

    You have no air speed indicator. In fact you hit a hail storm and your windsheild is so fractured you cannot see out and are subject to stalling and plumeting.

    Claiming to be at rest does approach an extreme assertion but reaching stall is not. The point however is very much the same and valid.


    Oh really then I best call channel 30 weather and let them know. There are a variety of radars technologies FLIR is on of them and I have had the priveledge of knowing and be friending Dr Edward Allard that invented FLIR for the military.

    I find it funny that I tried to be pragmatic and agree with your side and you want to reject the ability to KNOW you have airspeed so let the damn thing crash because it very well might.

    The bottom line here seems to be that the in crowd cannot let Macm be right even if he is agreeing with them.
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    As a pragmatic matter certainly if you wantr to use other frame of reference a pilot would know he was flying but you have unacceptably altered thev gendankin. The scenario was to use the SR claim that either observer cam claim to be at rest.

    If you are measuuring velocity to trees, houses, moutains, etc, below then you are not simply relying of relative velcity between you and the other observer per SR mathematics.

    That is why I have taken liberty to add to QQ sceanrio that his widshield has been fractured and he has no other datra than relative veloicty to the other craft.

    Not what say you? He knows he is not at rest becasue he can feel he is not in free fall. But he damn well doesn't know if he is going to stasll and start to fall does he.
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think certanly as I have stated he knows he is not at rest to the air because he is not in free fall. However he does not know his air speed and he may well crash.

    If I were him I damn well would be making sure my ejection button was ready to function and I had my parachute on.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page