Mac's Final Relativity Thread

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    And what you don't appreciate is I have said I do not have THE answer. The fact tht a simple absolute view may not produce consistant resultts is irrelevant. So as I have pinteed out SR's mere relative velocity view.

    My point is and has been that SR only works if you do what they NOW do which is consider frame switching (Who actually has velocity and not mere relative velocity).

    Further that even that has been limited in what has and can be tested such that the truth of many scenarios are based on shear speculation by extrapolating known data intyo a mathematical THEORETICAL situation.

    Math and algebra are not merely fine they are absolutely necessary in the final analysis to wowrk in the field; however, mathematics is a complete failure at predicting results in hypothetical and untestable situation.

    When you assume because you have measured a clock dilated that has accelerated and had relative velocity to your lab clock that from the perspective of the accelerated clock your lab clock is dilated physically you are making a humongous error.

    1 - It is a physical impossibilitiy for two clocks to each be ticking slowr than the other at the same time. Not room for arguement or claim of It is counter intuitive" It doesn't and can not happen - end of discussion.

    Can two clocks "Appear" to run slow to each other WHILE in relative motion? Of course but that is not the issue ,the issue has been and is, that only the most accelerated clock accumulates less time. A restng clock is never physically dilated.

    2 - By assuming #1 you have to ignore that your data was only recovered and valid because you rejected the resting clocks view in the first place by considering frame switching.

    3 - It is not my claim to have the solution but that I point out the problem and the problem is that they talk out of one side of their mouth but do something different. What they do is a form of absolute motion not mere relative motion.

    4 - So I don't really care what or if you have some evidence that simple absolute motion doesn't work. I already know that and have stated that openly. The issue however is that SR doesn't work on a relative velocity principle and they refuse to acknolwedge that.

    That is why I have no interest in pursuing proofs against simple absolute motion.

    5 - I have provided a couple of suggestion how we must begin to look at this to find the truth. The primary issue being that invariance of light is an illusion and not a physical rreality.

    a - A simular process to Cenrenko Radiation where something moving v>c creates photons. In which case every observer with different motion to the light source is seeing different photons not an invariant photon.

    b - A process simular to UnRuh. UnRuh has shown that an accelerating observer creates real particles out of virtual particles due to his acceleration. The energy to do that comes from the accelerating observer.

    Where instead of acceleration I suggest that there may be a process by which photons are created by motion relative to a source via some undetectable spatial fabric.

    These views suggest a dynamic multi-velocity spatial medium of which v = c is a fixed absolute reference based on total energy and which potentially also provides some insight into gravity, the accelerating expansion of the universe and particle entanglement.

    Are these concepts fully developed? Absolutely not. Are they logical? You bet and they are far more likely than Einstein's relavistic time-space view.

    So answer the failure of SR that is the current theory and stop being concerned about the fact that a simple static absolute view fails as well.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Sorry Pete. This is completely off point and has not been at issue. QQ raised the question suggesting that if the pilot was at rest according to SR (meaning the other air craft had all the velocity represented by the relative velocity being measured, that he would be in trouble.

    He posed no question about one being at rest to himself. That is just a stupid obvious assertion.

    1 - I have stated that since the pilot would know he is not free falling he would know either he has motion or there is a high wnd going under his wings. But he does not know his air speed and if he is about to stall.

    2 - If I am not mistaken you initially stated "air from the rear" and and that is why I commented that you had assumed a westward flight when the pilot stopped.

    So no I do not agree but find this irrelevant to the issue raided by QQ. Although I don't see QQ's point as being a valid one to SR.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Just a note to correct the record. In your case I have repeated the fact that simple absolute motion does not work wither. You didn't get me to admit something I didn't already know and had openly and publicly said.


    But as I have said that is not the issue. The issue is that the mere relative velocity view of SR is also a failure which is why they employ frame switching to break the symmetry of relative veloctiy but they refuse to acknowlege that the Einstein's relative velocity view is flawed and they are using a form of absolute motion.

    Further that application is betry limited and is without justification of emperical support sto be applied theoretically to hypothetical situation that are untestable.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    What are you smoking? No wonder you have trouble I have repeatedly said the opposite. "A" ticks slower than "C" . What was equal was "A" & "B" tick rates and they stay synched regardless of any relative velocity to each other if accelerated equally away from "C" at any vector.

    Right and just precisely as your watch is ticking the same as my watch at those velocities. But then you claim that reaching relavistic speeds our watches no longer tick the same the more accelerated one is dilated to the other.

    What I'm pointing out is that if it is dilated then the pilot using his slow ticking watch will compute velocity differently. Our difference is you want to claim time dilation as a physical reality in one frame but then ignore it when changing views and computing velocity. You effectively switch time standards when switching frames.

    I hold time dilation to be real as demonstrated by emperical data and rightfully argue that two observers, one with a clock ticking a 1.0 and the accelerated clock ticking at 0.95 will when considering traveling from Y to Z which are known to be at rest to each other 1 lyr apart.

    If the pilot accelerates to 0.3c according to v = at using a resting clock tick rate for "t" then according to a resting clock his tick rate is now 0.953939 not 1.0.

    That means its takes him 3.33333n years to make the trip according to a resting clock or he was traveling 0.3c.

    But according to his clock it only took him 3.33333n * 0.953939 = 3.17979 lyr which means he will calculate travel as 1 lyr / 3.17979 years = 0.314486c.

    Which means as I keep arguing, that distance does not foreshorten or contract because if time dilation is a physical reality then trip time is only properly accounted for if distance remains fixed.

    Correct with the exception of being a fantasyland view. The fantasyland view is to switch time standards between frames and ignore the physically dilated traveling clock's tick rate to force distance to appear to change.

    Noting of course that emperical data agrees with Mac's view in that spatial contraction has never been observed and thiongs physical don't become a matter of observer view point.

    It is more consistant to retain a physical condition in all frames (time dilation) than to ignore it and produce two distinctly different physical conditions as a function of observer perception ((time dilation in one view and spatial contraction in the other). That is really a fantasy.

    The truth vs fabricated fantasy where a physical condition becomes ignored in some other view.

    My batteries are low and my watch is ticking slow at only 8 ticks per 10 ticks of a resting clock running correctly.

    I don't know that my watch is dilated.

    I'm driving 60 miles from "A" to "B". I know the distance precisely and I happen to be driving 60 Mph but my speed-o-meter is broken and I don't know my speed either.

    When I arrive my O-Dometer agrees precisely with my understanding of distance but I will have made the trip in 48 minutes according to my dilated watch. Lets see I went 60 miles in 48 minutes that comes to 1.25 miles / minute = 75 Mph.

    Now lets see which is more logical. I forgot to tell you that your buddy was driving right next to you holding the 60 Mph speed because his speed-o-meter was working. It doesn't matter that I have your buddy moving along side I can also have overlapping radar installed all along the roadside of the 60 miles course. But going side by side makes the issue much more clear.

    He tells you "No you were going the same speed I was and that was 60 Mph therefor you only went 48 miles while I went 60 miles.

    Hmmmmmm. I really wonder which makes more common sense. I compute a higher velocity using my dilated watch or that driving side by side you went futher than I did.

    Really - My view is so much more rational in terms of physics it is hard to understand how you folks can't see it.

    Velocity is real and at a universal level relative velocity is symmetrical but at the local level where velocity is computed by the ratio of v = ds /dt, the dilated "t" of one frame vs another causes a different velocity calculation, not a difference in distance.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2009
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    On SR being “untestable”( Your point 3 above) I think you mainly refer to the lack of measurements that show Time Dilation, TD, “both ways.” I.e. that symmetric time dilation of clocks A & B has never been demonstrated. Or in my symbolic notation, it has never been demonstrated that TDBa = TDAb where the subscripts indicate the clock used for the measurements and TDB is the TD of clock B which is moving wrt clock A, etc. for TDAb.

    I would agree that if it were truly impossible in principle to test “symmetric time dilation” then SR’s claiming this is possibly false (or possibly true) but which will never be known. For example, I can claim my great great grandfather drank coffee for the first time on his 16 birthday. That can never be determined to be true, (assuming time machines never exist as even my father died years ago, photographs did not exist then, there are no written records, etc.) but that does not make it false. What makes your point 3 conclusion false is that it is possible to test mutual symmetric time dilation. I told how at start of post 195 as follows:
    and you replied, in part:
    I may have been confused and incorrectly remembered , with distortions, the 1972 H&K test you spoke of and said failed to show mutual symmetric time dilation. Your evidence for it being “strongly rigged” and “fraud” (link you gave) is an Email from Ivor Catt sent to Al Kelley on 6 June 2001 which has this link in it:
    http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/ but that has nothing to do with a test of any aspect of SR. (It is about atomic clock, by the inventor of the first, and tells how the astronomically defined second gave way, after a 6 year struggle, to the atomic clock which had error of less than one second in 300 years.)

    I.e. that "evidence” is not worth the time it take to link to it, as anyone can say anything in an Email. Furthermore, the 1972 H&K test is very different from the one I remember (or now suggest if my memory is confused with the H&K test) The H& K test had one clock flying east with the Earth’s rotation and one flying west against it. – Nothing like the test described in my post 195, Thus, clearly at least two ways (probably many) do exist to test the “symmetric time dilation.” I.e. testing that is certainly not “impossible in principle.”

    Possibly funding agencies will not pay for that test. Possibly one or more tests have been done with SR’s mutual “symmetric time dilation” confirmed. That confirming results would at best be buried in the back page of some minor science news section of a news paper. (and no doubt branded as “strongly rigged” and “fraud” in several Emails and in the journal of the Flat Earth Society, etc. but so what?) People unhappy with test (or election) results often claim fraud etc. It took about 500 years for the Pope to admit that the helio-cenetric theory of the solar system was correct instead of “strongly rigged” and “fraud.”

    Do you have ANY empirical evidence to support your claim that like your version of SR, the standard SR is also self contradictory?

    I have not yet thought any about your new three radioactive isotopes as clocks scenario, but admit that it is possible to prove a theory wrong with only a well designed thought experiment, so will get around to it soon if I can.

    Now back to the more important problem: Do you agree your avatar is now rotating counter clockwise?]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 18, 2009
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Correct.

    None of which have EVER demonstrated actual physical reciprocity of time dilation. What about "Impossible" do you not understand. Two clocks cannot, simply cannot, I repeat do not ever both tick slower than each other physically. That may have noting to to with an "Observed" tick rate while in motion.

    That is nothing more than the doppler example where motion distorts the frequency of waves at the reciever vs the actual frequency at the local proper tick rate.

    Local proper rastes are not all 1.0, 1.0, 1.0. i.e two space craft "A" & "B" launch from their inertial rest frame "C" . "A" reaches .2c and now has a tick rate to "C" of 0.9797c. "B" reaches 0.4c and has a tick rate of 0.9165c to "C".

    "A" & "B" think their tick rate is 1.0 locally but universally not only are they ticking as indicated comared to "C" they tick to each other by 0.9165c/0.9797c = 0.93549c B to A.

    Further it does not matter if "A" & "B" are co-moving (no relative velocity) or have launched in opposite directions where they have a relative velocity (according to "C") of 0.6c (0.55555c between "A" & "B"according to SR's Velocity Addition or 0.831479 "B" dilation to "A").

    This later scenario can be tested and I can assure you the physical results will show "B" dilated to 0.93549/1.0 for B/A, not SR's 0.831479/1.0.

     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    MacM there is more in this post of yours, that I hope to find time to comment on, but only on this part now.
    I appreciate and understand that you now do not claim to know how to correctly compute Time Dilation, TD, at least you no longer claim both your prior methodologies you agreed to in post 93 are correct. You can hardly do otherwise as my post 118 shows they do not agree. - I.e. they produce different computed results for the time dilation, TD, of the same clock in the same steady motion.

    I also understand that in your POV the standard SR theory is in equally bad shape and does not correctly compute TDs either, at least the clock which has been accelerated, does not observe the other clock to have same symmetric TD. You hold this POV as you firmly believe it is physical impossible for each of two clocks to correctly measure the other as running too slow. I agree that is indeed what SR claims, and belief it not only possible but true, but I will defer discussion of that for now as the point of this post is to again try to make you understand that your use of common English words in a scientific discussion is essentially without any clear meaning. You only do this and resist my well defined symbols. I will just illustrate with your latest introduced new term: "actual velocity" made bold above and contrasted against mere "relative velocity"

    What the hell is "actual velocity" if not identical to "mere relative velocity" ???

    I am now sitting at a table in my dining room in Sao Paulo, Brazil. WRT my table my relative velocity is zero. What is my "actual velocity"?
    Assuming James R is still in his bed, about to get up from his night of sleep in Australia; my velocity wrt James R is about 1500 miles per hour. (Earth's spin is moving him in the opposite direction from me but both of us have zero relative velocity wrt to our beds.
    What is James R's "actual velocity" ?

    Do I use his or my "actual velocity" to compute the TD of his clocks? Which does he use to compute the TD of my clocks?

    SR is very clear in answering these questions: we both use the 1500mph relative velocity, but I do not have the slightest idea what your "actual velocity" is.
    I honestly think you do not either, but if I am wrong then tell me what is James's and what is my "actual velocity". I think you are just mumbling meaningless (for scientific discussion) English words and despirately need to use well defined symbols, as I do.

    Having admitted your post 93 methodology does not work you now say I must used this new "actual velocity" to correctly compute TD. You say I should not foolishly use the "mere relative velocity" between me and James.

    If James and I both have our own identical atomic clocks, SR states that his is running slow wrt mine and also that mine is running slow wrt James’s clock at least if we were to leave the Earth and continue inertially on Earth tangential paths. (Right now it does not feel like I am accelerating, but I am as I am circling around the center of the Earth as is James, so technically SR does not apply. So please assume that James and I are in two inertial frames with our current velocities unchanged, even in direction.)

    You say both of us correctly measuring the other's clock as running slow is impossible. So please tell which one of us makes a correct measurement, again assuming we continued our current 1500mph speeds without any change in directions.

    Please vote for me to be correct! - Remember James R is not always nice to you and I did say you were "clever".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But to be fair to James tell why him doing exactly the same as I did to calculate the TD was wrong and my calculation was correct.

    To further beat the dead horse of your poor verbal descriptions - I.e. their lacking any well defined meaning in a scientific discussion, please tell me what is the "actual velocity" of this WWII anti aircraft shell the US navy fired at Japanese planes. (It has a chemical time lapse clock to make it explode at the range of the attacking plane. That did not work well so APL, where I worked, invented the proximity fuse shell that saved the US pacific fleet. The Navy was impressed and has supported APL for more than 60 years now, but we still invent for them - things like the standard missile and the Aegis radar etc.)
    To keep it easy I will just make up reasonable speeds. The shell is fired straight ahead of the ship with speed wrt to the ship of 300mph. the ship is going at 60 mph wrt to the water but only 58mph wrt the ocean floor due to the current. The ship is traveling due east at a latitude where the rotation of the Earth is moving trees etc to the East at 800mph and it is midnight so the Earth orbital speed is added to the shell also - that is huge in mph but in AU /year it is 2(pi)/ year.

    Now if your "Actual Velocity" term has any meaning, (I think not) what is the actual velocity of the artillery shell?

    Do you not see now how silly and meaningless your new verbal only descriptions of how one MUST calculate the TD of the clock in the artillery shell are? Perhaps you will back off and agree to let us use the "mere relative velocity"?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2009
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Nor have I ever claimed to have the answer. I stated years ago when first debating Persol, James and others that simple absolute motion does not seem to work either.

    Yes and No. Yes SR is equally flawed. No I have not said each do not Observe the other dilated. The issue is the physical state of being dilated After having had relative veloicty but compared in a common rest frame.

    NO, NO ,NO. They can measure each other dilated WHILE in relative motion but the fact is if one remained at rest the only clock that actually changes is the one the accelerated (switched frames). Relative velocity did nothing to the resting clock yet both shared a relative velocity.

    ACTUAL VELOICTY IS VELOICTY INDUCED BY F = MA AND V = AT, RELATIVE VELOCIOTY IS WHAT EACH SEES OF THE OTHER. A RESTING CLOCK SEES RELATIVE VELOITY OF THE ACCELERATED CLOCK - IT IS ACTUAL VELOICTY BUT THE ACCLERQTED CLOCK SEES THE RESTING CLOCK AS HAVING VELOICTY BUT IT IS MERELY RELATIVE AND NOT REAL. ONE HAS CHANGED INENERGY SATE UNIVERSALLY THE OTHER HAS NOT.

    I don't know and you will never know. We do know you rotte with the earth and move in an orbit around the sun which forms a heliz. We also know that the solar system moves approximately 300 km/s through the galasies of the unvierse.

    But what we do know is if you get up from your table and got to the fridge for a beer you have moved by induced "Actual" velocity to your prior inertial rest frame. That is an absolute change. That is while you may see the fridge moving toward you it hasn't actually got motion as part of the relative velocity between you.

    You do what GPS does and that is select a common inertial rest frame the ECI from which you can calculate both your surface velocities. Unfortunately if you are both at sea level there will be no dilation between you regrdless of your respective latitudes.

    See above.

    It is not "Now" I have always contended that "Actual" veloicty is the key.

    No I have not.

    Sorry have to run and don't have time to continue with this diatribe.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Can any one other than MacM see the distinction between actual velocity and SR perceived velocity?
    Where by one has universal ramification [ energistically ] and the other is mere SR abstraction?
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Very close QQ. Only I wouldn't call relative velocity an SR abstraction. It exists but it doesn't mean both have velocity.


    n't edited to correct tense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    I guess the most important issues are to realise:
    1] A clock can not physically dilate and undilate [ frame switching] unless it has a physical reason to do so. [ how do you undilate a clock... again...any one?]
    2] Length can not contract and uncontract unless it has a physical reason to do so. [ How do you uncontract length that is contracted..... again...anyone?]
    3] Neither outcome can be excluded from the universe as a whole due to the fact that both require inclusion of said universe to manifest phsycially any way.


    Switching frames does not cause a clock to physically dilate and undilate: - fact.

    Switching frames does not cause length to suddenly contract and uncontract physically for the other observer either:- fact

    If they do then SR is totally irrelevant to the universal picture as it has excluded the reality of physical universe as part of it's concepts.

    just my opinion ....which I know is worth jack Sh*t
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    And now my thread started in pseudo science:


    The Special Relativity Fudge of Universal dimensions :


    The issue is about how SRT obfuscates demonstrates inconsistency regarding the reality of acceleration and it's impact on relative inertial observers.
    "On one hand SR treats acceleration in isolation from the universal reality and in the other it is included in that same universe reality."

    Me thinks that people espousing SRT validity need to decide whether they want to deal with fiction/fantasy or reality and then stick to what ever they choose...

    care to discuss?


    makes a bit more sense....

    to undilate a clock you would have to de-accellerate yes?
    same with length contraction...switching frames is just not enough for physical reality I would think.
    the thread is locked so I haven't posted the link.
     
  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    sorry I just had too...

    "Captain A you have to deaccelerate your time is too dilated!"
    "Copy that Captain B but I have a slight problem!"
    "Copy that Captain A whats the problem?"
    "Sorry Captain B, no can do, I don't know how to de-accellerate when my current velocity is zero!"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  17. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    As SR is just a theory, SR cannot perceive velocity or color of sky or anything, so I will assume you are asking about MacM's terms: "actual" vs. "relative" velocity and comment on their difference now that MacM has made somewhat more clear what he means by "actual."

    Relative velocity does not depend up knowing the acceleration history of either clock now in relative inertial (no accelerations) motion but a prior history is needed to know their "actual velocity." This time history could be very complex but SR must know it all to make the accelerated clock dilate "correctly." Some clocks are very old even dozens of millions of years if it is deposit of uranium or many tens of thousands of years if the radioactive Carbon (C14, I think from memory) isotope clock used to date some fossil bones. It very hard to imagine how the F= ma double integrated for millions of years could be important in determining the Time Dilation of a clock ticking now, but that is only a minor concern compared to destroying everything we thought we knew about the stars, blue shifts etc.

    The spectral lines of all atoms are also clocks. In fact for many years now the second has been defined in terms of the radiation from some atom. I think it is now Cesium, as in Cesium atomic clocks. MacM's link about H&K 1972 test lead me to: http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/ where the inventor of the first atomic clock tells that it was a 6 year struggle to replace the spinning Earth with his much more regular atomic clock to define the second.

    So let’s consider what making time dilation a function of billions of years of acceleration history says about observed red shift of light from distant stars. Perhaps they are not moving away from us at all! Their red shift may be entirely due to the time dilation billions of years of acceleration history different from our sun has had. They might be hurtling towards us and yet have red shifted spectral lines! So we know nothing if about the motion of the stars, if MacM’s version of SR is correct. But it is still much worse than that:

    Even the basic postulate that the laws of physics are universal, and not local, is wrong! For example, the radiation from hydrogen, say the H beta line (a pretty blue if memory serves) may not even be visible light in some distant planet’s physics lab! The yellow sodium street lights we often use on earth could make harsh and dangerous UV radiation on some other distant planet. We need to print on all the physics handbooks:
    "Valid for use on Earth and only for approximately 10 years"
    as Earth’s acceleration by the sun and nearby galaxies is changing our physical time dilation so these published spectra wave lengths, the speed of light, the half live of Uranium, Carbon 14 etc. and everything else that depend on our local time dilation is changing as our accumulated acceleration history is still evolving.

    Silly as all this seems, it must be right. – MacM says time dilation depends only on the actual velocity (not the mere current relative velocity) and “actual velocity” depends on the entire acceleration history - about 13.8 billion years of it.

    It is my bed time or I would continue with even more examples of the consequences of this silly POV.
    I just did (above, this post). Care to reply?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2009
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    That is only partially correct. In the primary case you only need know of the last common rest frame to compare clocks. But the problem is if you attempt to got further back you get differning results.

    i.e. -

    I - "A" & "B" are at inertial rest and synchronized. "A" launches away from "B" and achieves a relavistic inertial velocity relative to "B" (actually to the initial rest frame which "B" still resides in).

    In this case we know historically by emperical data that "A" is losing time compared to "B". That is it must be ticking more slowly than "B".

    But the zinger is that if you now state that "A" & "B" were initially at rest in the "C" frame and accelerated away to some inertial relative velocity then both "A" & "B" had to dilate (start ticking more slowly) compared to "C".

    II - Now if you say "A" launches away from "B" and is returning to "C" then "A" must be slowing down relative to "B" since it was the most recent rest frame yet at the same time must be increasing tick rate to restore to the original "C" frame from which it dilated along with "B" in the first launch.

    That is "A" must be increasing and decreasing tick rate at the same time.

    Further there is no physical justification to explain how "A" knows it is returning to some prior rest frame of just leaving it's current one. It is purely a mathematical assumption made when computing dilation. We tell it it is returning and ignore that it is also leaving another rest frame.

    Turning a blind eye to this by only looking at one half of the physical consequences of a relative velocity view doesn't make it vanish.

    You may be finally starting to recognize the problem with todays current physics. If you accept SR as advocated you must also assume that the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe must be due to inverse lorentz contraction since the velocities at or near the edge of the universe are approaching v = c and for disance to be increasing the objects must be decelerating not accelerating.

    Quite possibly correct but not necessarily limited to 10 years -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But that is not the answer either.

    Actually no. I don't see how that works in the final analysis because it matters not what vector you accelerate. That is You can launch in any direction and be dilating from your most recent rest frame but if in one of those directions you are returning to a prior rest frame you will be "UNdilating".

    You cannot be increasing and decreasing tick rate at the same time. So our math may be useful as a primary calculation but it is not describing what is really going on.

    I am suspecting that "absolute rest" is actually a dynamic term, that is being inertial at some universal energy level. That energy level is multidirectional.

    That is the "Aether" if you insist on calling it that is in motion in every direction and at all possible velocities. Your rest frame is inertial at anyone of those energy levels and it doesn't depend on direction.

    Even more silly is to suggest that my getting in my car and speeding away causes your watch to slow down and distance I have gone from you is physically different for you than it is for me.

    Seems far more rational that time dilation, which has been recorded as physical, is physical and as such you and I will compute different velocities based on our tick rate "t" where our computed v = ds / dt and distance will not have changed nor will your watch be affected by anything I do.

    So now who is being silly?

    Surely not me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  19. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    the entire history of the universe is not all that necessary to work this issue out.

    If we start with an inertial pair their time dilation or actual tick rates are identicle regardless of universal history. [ and regardless of SR too I might add] To have two blocks of granite on a single table and consider one as ticking at a different rate would be a little absurd yes?
    Also I might add that due to relative simultaneity time dilation factors do not accumulate in a way that would normally make sense any way. [We still have simultaneity on the universal time line but relative simultaneity in the present moment {HSP}

    So we accellerate one object of granite and now we have one object of granite going at a velocity greater than it's buddy on the table and as it aquired all the energy and expended all the energy to accellerate against inertia and it's buddy didn't it, the accellerated granite has changed considerably more than it's buddy still sitting on the table. To simply switch frames for relative velocity calculations is one thing but to switch frames for time dilation is another as the block of granite on the table hasn't endured changes as significant as the one that acheived all the accelleration.
    Why this distinction is important is that time dilation could be and most probably is a product of inertia and it is the object that has operated against inertia that has suffered accordingly.

    The block on the table has not had to fight against inertia to accellerate [even though it must endure something but considerably smaller given the universal scale of things]
    So the SR derived ability to simply switch frames in my opinion is seriously neglectful of the universal reality, in particular to inertia.

    Therefore it leaves SR only relevant to objects that are at relative velocity with out accelleration creating that relative v. Now I am not sure how relative v can be acheived with out accelleration at some point so I fail to see how SR can ultimately stand up using the frame switching method of explanation.

    Time dilation is caused by the accelleration/velocity interacting with all obejcts of matter universally including that of the other observer but it is only the observer that under goes change [accelleration] that has physical reason for dilation [the fight against inertia]. The other observer has none.

    IMO

    So when confronted with two objects closing at v the only sane position to take is to ascribe equal velocity to both observers as history of accelleration is unavailable and to grant dilation, only to either observer rather than both observers or no observers, is an unecessary speculation.

    Hence the two planes flying blind gedanken [except for doppler] neither pilot can assume anything other than that they are closing at a certain rate, thus symmetrical or mirrored velocities would be recorded and no time dilation is present [given the isolation of this two observer system]
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Billy T:

    As far as I can tell, MacM's answer is that velocity is only "real" in certain special frames. The catch is that in any given situation only MacM knows which frames are special and which ones produce "illusions of motion". There's no procedure by which anybody else can work out anything in MacM fantasyphysics.

    His nonsense offends me, too.

    He thinks independently all right, but his thoughts are muddled and inconsistent. Since he has failed in over 5 years to understand simple concepts that my students understand in 1 week, I don't regard him as exceptionally clever. He still doesn't even know what a reference frame is.

    Actually, if you read my posts in this thread, most of the time I've been asking MacM questions about his own nutty theory. I have been attempting to make sense of it. However, it turns out to be nonsense. Every problem is met with a new ad hoc solution, which is unscientific to say the least.

    For example, this thread is the first one in which MacM has introduced the new concept of "velocity dilation". Why? Because without it his theory obviously doesn't work. He doesn't believe in length contraction - only time dilation (of a sort). Therefore, velocities must dilate too in MacM fantasyworld. And he calls special relativity ludicrous.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    This is pure Bull S___. Macm has never made any such assinine claim. Relative velocity exists and is real what is not necessarily real in relative velocity is if you have actual motion or not. You can be sitting at rest and never move and when somethingelse moves near you ,you both share relative velocity but you have not moved and are not moving (with respect to your inertial rest frame). Having not moved and made no changes you are subject to no physical changes - period.

    Please confine your BS idioctic ideas to your own views.

    More BS. Two clocks have relative motion. Given no other information which will have accumulated the least time? You don't know. SR doesn't know and your mathematical prediction is BS because there is no way of testing the result.

    The only way to predict with any validity is if you know who accelerated compared to a common rest frame.

    If this is incorrect please demonstrate with emperical data not BS SR math.

    As does your nonsense me.

    Given a choice I rather believe that time dilation is physically real and we would calculate a different relative velocity by v = ds / dt where dt is based on the physical tick rate of each frame.

    Where distance remains physically the same rather than hold a view where in one frame a clock is dilated and ticks slower but in another frame distance has changed, plus if I move I change your clock.

    Or where I get closer the faster I fly away, OR;

    Distance to remote gallaxies are changing at 1,000,000c or higher due to spatial contraction due to my local acceleration OR;

    All the other "Counter Intuitive" bullshit put forth by SR.

    What a lot of nonsense.

    It is amazing how you simply ignore my driving between cities scenario.

    Does his slow ticking watch account for trip time or does it make him go less distance?

    The answer is obvious and the only thing required for this view is to hold something emperically shown to be physically real, physical in all frames.

    WOW what a reach -

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    More assinine negative innuendo. Prick. If you can't answer the issue say so. Attacking the messenger does nothing but show your ass.

    You continue to ask question because you can't or won't address the answers.

    Now answer my question. How do you justify claiming a clock is tick dilated in one view but then claim they tick the same in another thereby forcing one to mathematically conclude distance changed in one frame.? A common cause (whatever that is) produces two distinctly different physical results in opposing frames - A lot of crap - period.

    You can't other than it is built into the time-space concept and relative velocity concept put forth by Einstein. A concept that did not work and has had to now consider who switched frames (accelerated) before any calculation is valid or testable.

    Swithcing frames is nothing more tha determining who has actual motion in a relative velocity pair. End of arguement - you lose.

    Again another false assertion. I have routinely and historically years ago - here - repeated that requirement.

    Making shit up just doesn't cut it as a rebuttal James R.

    Do me a favor.

    Ask you students which makes more logical sense as a physical theory.

    Physical tme dilation in one frame but not the other and physical spatial contraction in the one but not the other, all as a matter of observer view point; OR

    Time dilation as a physical reality that is physical in all frames and distance remains fixed such that at relavistic speeds with a slow watch I would merely calculate a different velocity.

    Go ahead and report back. Your answer will demonstrate how honest you are or aren't because logically I win - period.

    You can call it silly , fantasyland, stupid, ignorant, etc, etc., all you want but the facts here are completely obvious. Anything physically real is physically real in all frames. Your SR is Mumbo Jumbo BS that is only valid if you ignore it's very relative velocity basis and consider who actually moved and not mere relative velocity.

    Frankly humanity should be offended by SR as an insult to intelligence.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I think, MacM, your problem here is due to two things: (1) Only verbal description, which leaves somewhat unclear who is measuring the “tick rate” and (2) Your assumption, sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes only tacitly implied, that a give clock MUST have only one true physical tick rate. Before commenting more as not all clocks “tick,” I will switch to speak of “Time Dilation,” TD, instead of tick rates. (Recall that I mentioned artillery shells with a chemical clock that caused them to explode a set time after launch and you have spoken of radioactive decay rates as a clock, neither of which “tick” but all do have TDs.)

    Thus here is your above scenario repeated in more precise symbolic terms, instead of only with your words:

    When B left A, which remains still at rest in frame E, and ceased all acceleration (B has velocity VBe) it had TDBe. Now considering the “zinger” – When both A& B accelerated away equally from rest in frame C then coasted together, they both had the same TD, but to be precise and avoid your verbal confusion /ambiguity, I state this as: TDBc =TDAc =TDAc1 (I will need to distinguish this TDAc from another I will speak of soon so added the 1 to its name .) Now when “A" launches away from "B" and is returning to "C" if it briefly turns motors off and coast at VAb which would not in general equal -VAc,* but could I say TDAb exist and so does TDAc2 but TDAc2 < TDAc1 as now that A is returning to frame C, it has speed wrt C less than it had when with TDA1.

    I hope you were willing to follow this and think clearly with the aid of my precise notation, but now I will restate your conclusion in your “words only” form:

    SR claims that the tick rate of clock A (Its TD) is both slowing down and speeding up. – That is physically impossible. Obviously just more SR nonsense!

    Yes, clock A’s TD (or tick rate) TDAb is INCREASING as gets increasing velocity VAb wrt clock B.
    Yes, clock A’s TD (or tick rate) TDAc is DECREASING as gets decreasing velocity VAc wrt frame C.

    There is nothing impossible, no “nonsense” going on here (blue text above). – The problem is due ENTIRELY to your ambiguous “words only” description, which lacks the precision needed to allow one to correctly understand what is happening.

    The rest of your post just builds on this confusion your inadequate “words only” methodology permits. For example, you continue as follows:

    Of course it is silly to think that clock A “knows” of it prior history (or it future destinations). I would never say that. SR does not say that. SR states TD depends ONLY on the current relative velocity. It is MacM’s version of SR that states the TD depends upon the clock knowing and remembering from which mutual rest frame it has been accelerated earlier. Your entire POV postulates that one of two clocks, (both of which have been for the last year been without any acceleration, but do have relative motions) in some way remembers that it was the one which accelerated away from the other.
    ---------------
    *As A is leaving B but returning to C the velocities VAb and VBc have opposite directions, hence the negative sign. I.e. one of the two must be negative. In my posts, other than this one, I avoid use of vectors and only speak of speeds. This forces me to tell the direction. Typically I say sonething like ïn the + X direction as I have mentioned that all motion is along the X-axis. Speed is never negative.

    PS to QQ:
    I will get back to your granite blocks ASAP, but now must go to a party so perhaps tomorrow.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 19, 2009
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Frankly your first error is your assumption that "I" have a problem and not yourself.

    There is and has been no problem with who "Measures" tick rate. You and James R seem to choose to repeatedly ignore the issue and that is not who "Sees", "Percieves", "Observes", etc but what is the physical reality when compared in a common rest frame subsequent to having had relative velocity.

    My radioactive clock scenario demonstrates that that is not a frame dependant function but is the same in either frame compared.

    \

    Babble - radioactive decay and chemical reactions may well be viewed as clocks and the general relationship to a tick rate is no different than claiming an atomic clock time dilation is a function of some tick rate. The physical requirement to tick is nonsense. Tick rate defnies the accumulation of time and hence any time dilation affect. You are being a bit more than silly here.

    What a joke. At no point have you resolved the issue of "A" dilating to "B" in both cases but also increasing tick rate back to "C" when it returns. You algebra adds nothing but confusion.

    Your algebra changed nothing. "A" must be dilated to "C " while inertial with "B". By mere relative velocity "A" must dilated from "B" when accelerating away but in returning to "C" must also be UNdilating to return to the higher tick rate of "C".

    You have changed or answered nothing here.



    Fine then post emperical data showing that "B" which has remained at rest is physically dilated because "A" accelerted away. It has relative velocity so according to you and SR it must be accumulating time slower than "A".

    We can and have shown that "A" is dilated to "B" but we do that by acknowledging it has actual velocity since it switched frames and by ac tual emperical data.

    Post you emperical data for "B" or shut up.

    I have made no such claim. I have pointed out the inconsistancies of SR I have not claimed that is how SR should or does function.

    Bull. Clocks don't remember, they react to enviornmental changes. One may have accelerated more than the other and emperically we know that IT will have accumulatedc less time. That is all we know.

    Being completely honest here Billy I find it almost laughble that you have posted in the past that you aren't that up on relativity yet you attempt to come on here and assail me and make claims you cannot support as though you are an authority.

    I spend more time correcting you and James R for having made assinine claims about what I believe or have said that are simply untrue and most often just the opposite of what I said or believe than anythingelse.

    You both spend more time trying to post lengthy scenarios demanding to do the SR math than addressing the issues raised.

    We all know what SR math does that has not been at issue, so it makes no sense what-so-ever to do these exercises just to show what the math result is.

    Now address the issue.

    Why do you only apply SR to an observer that has switched frames?

    Why never to the resting frame?

    They both share a relative velocity.

    We are waiting.

    I am not impressed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page