A small problem for legendary JamesR on Relativity

My meaning was if you keep up the horseshit I will post my scholastic achiements and prove you are full of shit.

You must think I have a feeble memory. I don't. You took a position on the Merry-Go-Round issue and you choose the wrong side.

[post=341013]James R on Rulers[/post]

[post=341126]My Position on Rulers[/post]
************************Extract **********************
That is the fact that the ruler at the edge in motion contracts. But so does the circumference, hence no measureable change in Pi.

My complaint was not against Lorentz Contraction it was against the claim that the measurement changes. It can't in my view because the rotating disk and the ruler are subjected to the very same influences.
****************************************************

[post=343546]Persol about Ruler Size[/post]

***************Extract from your post **********************
You continue to tell people that their interpetation of 'ruler size' is wrong, but have yet to show any math saying why. Others have gone into great detail to explain this too you, but you still show a basic lack of understanding.
*****************************************************

[post=344125]MacM Challenge Persol about Pi[/post]

You ducked my challenge but you took a position which was flat wrong.
Now that we know you just lied above about not having been wrong on that issue. Perhaps you are not so infaliable after all.

[post=513142]Proof - Click on the Attachment Here[/post]

No interpretation required. James R has shown clearly that the clock displays are 100% in accordance with length contraction. That leaves no room for dilated tick rate of the clock.

You can calculate tick rates using t2=t1(1-v²/c²)^1/2 but if you do you can no longer calculate length contraction and d = vt or the clock readings will no longer be what they actually display.

BOTH "Lorentz Contraction" and "Time Dilation" cannot exist at the same time or the math falls apart. So make up you mind which one is not physical in reality. At least one must be "Illusion".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

at least here at sciforums there is an opportunity to express a view with out the heavy handed censorship at "that other site " that you are responsible for Warren....if you find your other site so boring that you have to come to sciforums for entertainment then maybe you should lift your somewhat arbitary thread closures policy and so on......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interestingly enough twit I don't need a defense. It is you that need a new offense. Your personal attacks are baseless and contribute nothing to the scientifc discussion.

I only post achievements so as to offset baseless assertions being made by your side. There happen to be a lot of readers here and such nonsense will not be left unanswered so as to leave a mis-impression.

BTW: For anyone with half a mind, the time dilation issue which I raised two years ago and have continued to debate. Which you saw fit to close my thread and ban me on your site for just having posted the question has now been shown to be in my favor.

Lorentz Contraction and Time Dilation cannot coexist BOTH as physical realities or your math falls apart. One or the other must be "Illusion" and not physical. So stick it in your ear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TO ALL READERS JAMES R HAS NOT SAID IT, HE REFUSES TO SAY IT BUT I SAY IT BASED ON HIS OWN MATHEMATICS. IF HE OR YOU DISAGREE THEN YOU MUST SHOW HOW IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE OTHER THAN I HAVE STATED.

[POST=703574]James R's Calculation of my clock problem[/post]

Note that the clock readings agree with time to travel the shorter distance. That means that the tick rates had to remain constant.

 

BUT BUT BUT , There is a huge problem in this.

Thanks for Not ignoring me 1100f. No body else here had the guts to answer it, they r here just to patronize their hollow egos by bashing maths.

U see there are some aliens in the train with me. And they have confirmed using their devices that the train is at 99%C on Earth; And then they also said that the speed of the rocket to the Train is 99%C in the same direction the train is moving. Now they are asking me to ask U humans that , How do U explain the speed of rocket from the train when U are already aware that the train is at 99%C to the earth ???

Dont U think there is something wrong here ?

 

You yourself have just made comment which is a distortion.

I challenge you to show that what I have said about your post is not absolutely true.

Does or does not Lorentz Contraction account 100% for the display of the moving clocks. Yes or No.

 

[post=703574]Both Frames[/post]

*********************** Extract ******************
At the instant of the collision, both observers will agree that clock A reads 10 hours and clock B reads 4.35 hours.
***********************************************

You stood by that statement [post=704076]Here[/post] when asked specifically about reciprocity in both frames.

******************Extract *****************
With all the assumptions I established in my post addressing your new scenario, I stand by my analysis of that scenario.
*******************************************

You tried your double talk [post=704113]Here[/post] by claiming in the observers view the clock must have ran slow. That is playing hide and seek with the truth and ignores your established fact that the clock accumulates less time because it traveled less distance. Your response goes to "Illusion" not "Reality". That is the issue, not if an observer can be fooled by an illusion of motion..

***************Extract*****************
From A's point of view, B has to travel 9 light hours, which takes 10 hours. A explains the final reading on B's clock by saying B's clock was running slow during the 10 hour trip.

From B's point of view, A has to travel 3.92 light hours, which takes 4.35 hours. B explains the final reading on A's clock by saying that, although A's clock was running slow, it was started long before B's own clock was started, giving it enough time to catch up to and overtake B's time.
**********************************************

Explaining the view as time dilation is to grant the display a duality of causes.

You try again [post=704638]Here[/post] to claim duality of clock displays by claiming the observers subjective view vs actual cause. There can be only one cause, which is it. If spatial dimension is valid as you calculated the clock display is satisfied by the lesser distance traveled and the display is only correct if the clock's tick rate remains unchanged by relative motion.

************************* Extract *************************
They agree on final displayed times. They do not agree on total elapsed times since the start of the test. B says the test took 4.35 hours. A says it took 10 hours. The only way they can disagree about this is is time dilation effects occur.
*******************************************************

You repeat and compound your error [post=704921]Here[/post] by showing the time dilation calculation produces the same result.

************************Extract *************************
t2 = t1 sqrt(1-(v/c)2)

Plug in t1=10 hours, v=0.9c, and you get t2=4.35 hours.

There you go. Time dilation!
*******************************************************

You fail to realize that you have not also computed the fact that the clock traveled less distance to produce that result. If Lorentz Contradction is a real physical phenomena then it must occur also and that makes your clock times in error.

I repeat BOTH cannot be physical functions. One or the other MUST be "Illusion of Motion". Which is it. You can't have both. It violates the clock displays in reality to assume both are physically real functions that must coexist simultaneously during relative motion.

SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS: After two years of BS about this issue it comes down to the fact that I have been right. Relativists have no sound arguement to declare BOTH spatial contraction and time dilation as BOTH physical realitites.

IFSPATIAL CONTRACTION IS PHYSICALLY REAL THEN THE TIMES ON THE CLOCK DISPLAYS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR BY DISTANCE TRAVELED BY D = VT AND CLOCK TICK RATES MUST REMAIN CONSTANT AND THE TWIN PARADOX IS A FRAUD AND HOAX. IT BECOMES NOTHING MORE THAN ME DRIVING 10 MILES OR 4.356 MILES AT THE SAME VELOCITY IN WHICH CASE MY AGE HAS NOT CHANGED DUE TO THE SHORTER TRAVEL TIME.

IFCLOCK TICK RATE IS DECLARED PHYSICALLY REAL THEN TIME DILATION COULD BE REAL AND THE TWIN PARADOX COULD EXIST BUT SPATIAL DIMENSIONAL CONTRACTION CANNOT.

CONSIDERING THAT THE TWIN PARADOX CREATES TEMPORAL COMPLICATIONS IF "EITHER" RELAVISTIC FUNCTION WERE TO BE CONSIDERED REALITY; WHICH IS NOW SUTIABLY DRAWN INTO QUESTION, THEN O'CAMS RAZOR WOULD FAVOR LORENTZ CONTRACTION AND NOT TIME DILATION AS BEING THE ONLY PHYSICAL REALITY.

 

Agree 100%, 200%, . . .N%

The following is a simple widely analyzed problem everyone has studied. This demonstrates the validity of your conclusions.

Two photons are emitted at the midpoint of a moving frame (to the right) directed at reflectors L and R at opposite ends of the frame. The times of emission, arrival at the reflectors and arrival at the midpoint are recorded in computer databases located at the three locations. During time t the left photon has arrived at L, which has moved a distance vt to the right during this time. The right photon has arrived a position 2vt short of R at time t, a distance ct to the right of the photon emission point. The midpoint has moved vt to the right during t.

After moving a distance ct the R the right photon must move a distance 2vt + vt’ to reach R. The vt’ is the distance the frame moves when the photon is moving through the 2vt distance, therefore we may say, ct’ = 2vt + vt’, or

t’ = t(2v)/(C – V).

The left photon moves another distance ct after reflecting back toward the midpoint nd is then located a distance 2vt short of the midpoint which has moved a distance 2vt to the right of the original position. The right photon which had been reflected to the left is located 2vt + vt’ to the right of the midpoint. At this point bothe photons have moved distance 2ct.

Now we may consider the two photons to have been emitted at this very instant from the position shown below where the “ * “ indicates the instantaneous and actual midpoint of the photons in the photon frame, the photon motion being independent of the frame of the source of the photons.

Code:

  left photon  ->|       |   *           |<-right photon 

The photons eventually arrive simultaneously at the midpoint.

The observer on the frame reviews the computer printout of all the events and discovers the following:

1. A time t’ greater than expected for the round trip of the photons as known by the observer having conducted thousands of tests in the stationary frame.
2. The time of arrival of the left photon at L was earlier than expected.
3. The time of arrival of the photon at R was later than expected and after the arrival of the left photon at L.
4. After the left photon had moved 2ct the relative positions of photons and midpoint was as described in the schematic prepared for the observer above.

The observer suspecting some clock synchronization problem, or equipment malfunction repeated the experiment another thousand times, with the same results as above.

The observer concluded:

• The photons were emitted simultaneously in the observer’s frame
• The round trip time was t’ longer than expected for a frame of reference at rest.
• The midpoint of the L and R reflectors on the observer’s frame of reference was verified.
• For the photons to arrive simultaneously at the midpoint of the frame of reference and the predicted midpoint of the photons in a collision trajectory, which was located to the right of the midpoint, the frame of reference must have been moving from the time t0, when the photons were emitted simultaneously from the midpoint of the frame moving to the right.
• The justification for the observer to consider himself at rest, that allowed him to consider himself and his frame of reference equivalent to the stationary frame of reference was not based on verifiable physical law and was, therefore erroneous.
• t' is the veiled culprit recruited by corrupt special relativity theorists for their own immoral purposes.
• If t' > 0, motion is guaranteed.
• If t' = 0 the frame is stationary.

You do good work MacM, very good work.
geistkiesel

 

[long quote deleted]

Thank you very much. It is not often that I get compliments here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As I am sure you are aware there are several here that will continue to claim I am ignorant and just to stupid to understand but frankly that offense is their only defense. The facts are clear and Relativity (as presented) is flawed.

 

One can make sure that here we deal with Math:

ignorance + ignorance = ignorance

 

Well, you've got to do a better job than this....

Actually, no. I was arguing against your reasoning... I didn't claim what you said I did... and I still hold that your reasoning is incorrect. The post you linked to demonstrates this clearly... but thanks for playing.

 

"There is a pounding that starts inside the heads of certain kinds of people when they're convinced they're right. They know in theory all about being cool and diplomatic, but in practice a great righteous anger takes hold, and they say exactly what they think, in short and cutting words. Later they cool off, dial down, and vow to think before they speak, but then the red demon rises again in fury against those who are wrong or stupid--or seem at the moment to be."

--- Roger Ebert

 

It looks good on paper but when you build it, it become another junk like your pasta pot.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BTW, have you sold your pasta pot as scrap metal yet? It probably worth at least 2 bucks. As for your coming block buster, the unworkable "fusion reactor", I have no estimate about its worth as a junk. Post a picture when you have it ready so I can help estimate its junk value.

 

I'm especially pleased that you have choosen to join this discussion.

You by far have been the most arrogant and egotistical of any who have ever opposed me.

At his juncture however, I do not feel that I must return the favor by lowering myself to your infantile level and respond in kind.

I will simply note that you have not made any mathematical or scientific contribution which in any manner alters the inescapable conclusion that Relativity is fatally flawed.

That is not to say that it does not have utility when used sparingly and with full awareness that it is not a true representation of physicaly reality.

For a man claiming to be highly educated and accomplished you certainly lack good common sense. That which is impossible is not merely counter-intuative, it is false.

 

I didn't say what you said. I copied an extract of what you said and gave the link to show that it is not out of context.

The simple truth is that you in your never ending attempt to be funny by attacking me and wrongfully believing others and that I know nothing simply jumped on the band wagon and made an ass out of yourself.

Frankly most of these discussion are well over your head. But not mine as is now clear.

 

I like that. Thanks.

 

Are you really going to be the last one on this site to learn your lesson?

We have already estimated the value of your posts and opinions. Zilch, nada, neyt.