Mac's Final Relativity Thread

I note the important distinction...and thanks....but also note that I have always been approaching Speical Relativity [SRT] and not relativity theory [RT] persee.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.

No. No emperical data exists showing reciprocity and reciprocity on it's surface is a ludricrus notion and would be a physical impossibility.

Agreed. Just as you have shared relative velocity but not shared actual veloicty you have a shared "Apparent" accelertion but not a shared actual acceleration.

To have actual accelertion one must be subject to F = ma inducing v = at.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't referring to Einstein, Mac. I was referring to those who tried alternative models, people like Lorentz, Fresnel, Fizeau, Michelson, Stokes, Planck, and many others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You sound as though you might actually agree that time dialtion in a resting frame is a measurement issue caused by an illusion of motion. I

f so we have no arguement.

 

\
My three points were attempting to describe the conventional view from the SRT'ists MacM. Thus pointing out what I believe is inconsistancy in the use of relativity. [ good for two but not good for three of those points]

 

As I said above Billy, I'm not impressed. Acceleration isNOT excluded from SR. It is just more difficult to do. Your lack of actual understanding here should exclude you from coommenting in such threads.

 

Look I'll repeat them for Pete as well.....

if assessing a theory that has this significant inconsistancy what would you think?

 

QQ,

Keep in mind at all times that time loss is an on going issue at the new veloicty, not just a matter of losing time during acceleration.

 

You need to go a step back. You will never resolve it if you refuse to understand the basic notions of galilean relativity, and if you refuse to consider letting go of pet notions.

 

Why is this inconsistent? Do you think that everything should be relative or nothing?
Do you also disagree with Galileo and Newton, who said that:

1 - The distance between events at different times is relative
2 - Velocity is relative
3 - Elapsed time is not relative
4 - Acceleration is not relative

 

Pete I already know that there is no resolution...so really there is nothing to step back from....

SRT uses acceleration in an inconsitent to relativity way. Simple as that. It has to to justify it's results, and that is also simple to see.
If it treated accelleration in the same manner as it did the other key issues the results for SRT would be terribly incorrect.
So the lopsided use of accelleration although a startling contradiction to relativity still stands as it supports the outcomes of the theory that happen to coincide with some known empiral evidence.
So whilst I am taking your advice and stepping back as I always do I suggest that you take your own advice and do the same because IMO SRT is blatantly a fudge....and you can't see it.

 

You should read more slowly or carefully. I clearly stated that everyone is ALWAYS at rest to themselves, even during acceleration. But that is a nonsensical issue which has absolutely no bearing on the subject here.

See above. The issue of time dilation revolves around velocity to a rest frame and to interject the obvious is meaningless.

Correct except I am not and have never been confused about any of this. Your implying I am or hve been is nothing but unsupported negative innuendo.

I'm saying if you disagree with me you are wrong. Plain enough -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you cannot tell by SR if it has accumulated less time than any other object. To claim it is ticking slower because itv has motion to you is to assume who accelerated in the past.

You do remember that you apply that standard when computing SR don't you. Why do you choose to not apply it in cases where you can have no emperical data to support your prediction?

 

Pete,
Would you consider the points mentioned below as valid description of the SRT position but fail to see how this amounts to an inconsistancy?

yes or no?

.
.
edit: have included a clarification "observer"

 

All of which Einstein plagerized or has been wrongfully given credit - i.e for E = mc^2. You should give more credance to the fact that applying the "Switched Frame" standard you are actually applying LR not SR but claim it is SR (more plagerizing).

 

All I am attempting to do to be honest is to "narrow" down MacM's complaint against SRT so that it can be debated properly without all the fudge , inuendo and bullshit that flys about on occassion.

 

The description is ambiguous, oddly worded, and incomplete. "Can switch frames", for example, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm also not completely sure what concept you're attaching to "relativity of Time dilation".

This description of SR is better:
1] The magnitude and direction of velocity is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
2] Time elapsed between events is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
3] The magnitude of acceleration is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
3] The direction of acceleration is not relative (will be the same in all reference frames with the same orientation)

Perhaps you can describe the perceived inconsistency?

 

ok...thanks.....shall ponder a little and get back...

 

So why, exactly, do you say that it is ludicrous that SR says that any inertial reference can be considered to be at rest?

As far as I can tell, you are disagreeing with yourself, but I suspect that's because I'm not following what you're thinking.

Please, stay away from time dilation for the moment - I'm trying to be clear about what you mean by your concept of "actual velocity," to understand why you distinguish between "motion" and relative velocity, and hopefully to establish a common understand of a reference frame in the context of Galileo's relativity.

 

Perhaps you should read what I said again. Some things (pseudo-forces) that occur in non-inertial reference frames are not real.

 

Ok ..First impressions when comparing the two posts are:
1] When discussing SRT we make the mistake of over simplifying what really is just an extension of GR [General Relativity] or vica versa.
2] In doing so we set the scene for over simplistic complaint against SR when in fact GR must be included before any complaint can be lodged.
3] Therefore all this arguement about SRT is really "kids fighting in a sandpit" type situation where by to really argue the case a full and complete understanding of GR is necessary so that SR is not over simplified.

ok first impressions so far... and I know MacM is not going to like them...
The problem is none of the posters to this thread are "stupid" all very intelligent and clever individuals [ except me maybe ha]
To claim inconsistancy as blatantly as I have and yet still get a counter indicates something that can only mean over simplification.

This means that GR and SR can not be treated in isolation but must be combined in some way to make the whole picture consistant and complete.

does this make sense to you Pete so far?