A small problem for legendary JamesR on Relativity

Wait, how the hell do you plan to measure your energy change in the quasar's frame of reference? Your claim is that we've never measured it... so? Do you have a method to do so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're thinking seems fuzzy, Mac.

The crux of your argument is that accelerations measured on Earth (not with respect to the ejecta) should be altered.

Remember this?

Is the 0-60Mph in your statement measured with respect to Earth, or to the quasar?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't be so pragmatic. My point is that if Relativity is physically real it affects our physics in all frames at all times, not just when we look at it or specify a particular frame. Hence we should see numerous humps and bumps in energy required to accelerate objects. We see NONE

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What effect does relativity specify that would 'affect us at all times'? Being called 'relativity' and all, you'd think you'd realize that it requires a comparison with an external frame to see the difference.

 

What do you not understand about relative velocity causes an increase in energy required to accelerate. What do you not understasnd that Quasar ejecta moving at or > 0.95c is moving relative to us and that "According" to Relativity MUST affect our ability to accelerate. We see NO such affects. Not a peep.

 

60 Mph was in reference to earth.

What do you not understand about "There is no measured change in our ability to accelerate in any direction we choose, even though many directions include universal objects moving near the speed of light which according to Reltivity requires dimensional changes, energy changes, time changes, mass changes etc., occur as we move from orthogonal to in line of sight with such objects.?

Magnitude here is not at issue. At nearly the speed of light the change in energy to accelerate is signifigant by multiples of energy not mere fractions of %'s. These frames exist to us if we are looking at them or not. They should become apparent by their affect on our physics. Since NONE are seen, that should tell you something.

 

LOL. HeHeHe. Now Persol believe Relativity only works when we make specific referances. HeHeHe. Some physical reality you live in. Talk about spooky. :bugeye:

Relativity doesn't have an affect unless we are watching it? Get real for a change. You are loosing it.

If Relativity is physically real and it causes multiples of energy change required to accelerate then you would measure the affect if you established the referance frame or not. It exists if you write it down or not. Get it?

 

You mentioned about there was one quasar ejecta coming toward us. How about if there are 10 or 20 of such fast moving material coming toward us from all different direction at the same time? Which ejecta you want to choose as the one that you think should affect your car or spacecraft acceleration? So, your argument has no logic at all. What theory would tell you that because there are moving particles coming from all directions we need more energy to accelerate? You can't pick one of them and ignore the rest, you can't take average velocity. Your argument is absolutely nonsense.

And, what proof do you have that there is no somekind of "difficulty to accelerate" in certain direction (be very cautious...watch the reference frame context)? You can't measure this "difficulty" by looking at your fuel usage...such as when you go to north you need more fuel (because there is quasar ejecta coming along that direction) and when you go other direction you don't and so on. You cannot measure the effect that way. You have to measure your (car or spacecraft) velocity change relative to that incoming quasar ejecta. You choose a reference frame and ignore the rest and only relative to this particular reference frame (quasar ejecta) you have that "difficulty to accelerate"...but relative to the earth or other stars, of course no such thing. Until now you still do not even a glipse of clue about this issue? OMG...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Relativity says that we should see none. If you understood it (do the maths), you'd agree.

Good.
So, here's my updated understanding of your argument, summarized.
Please correct any misunderstanding:

• I accelerate on Earth from 0 to 60mph.
• I happen to be accelerating toward some high speed quasar ejecta, approaching Earth at 0.95c.
• This means that I'm actually accelerating from 0.95c to 0.95c+60Mph relative to that ejecta.
• Much more energy than usually expected is required to accelerate by that amount at high speeds
• Therefore, I should have spent much more energy than usually expected when accelerating from 0 to 60mph

Is this a reasonable representatio of your argument?

 

You have finally seen the light. How many times do you think I have said multiple masses, multiple time displays and multiple lengths, all as a function of observers view. IT IS PERCEPTION AND NOT REALITY.

To the contrary. You have just pointed out the reason Relativity must be relagated to perception and not physical reality. Also note that it is impossible to get a homogeneous affect from surrounding relative moving bodies.

Instead of just one affect we should actually see numerous pertabations in our physics but we see none; which confirms my view not yours.

You do seem to disregard basic physics here. v = at. Regardless of actual velocity change relative to such objects "a" requires substantially more energy to achieve any change in velocity be it 1 Mph or 1,000,000 Mph in a given time frame (yours). The energy required for example might only be 1% different to 1,000% different but the point is there is NO incidence of a differing F = ma for any directional affect inspite of such numerous objects with relative velocities near the speed of light.

You need a new thoery. This one falls apart in first principles.

[quose]You choose a reference frame and ignore the rest and only relative to this particular reference frame (quasar ejecta) you have that "difficulty to accelerate"...but relative to the earth or other stars, of course no such thing. Until now you still do not even a glipse of clue about this issue? OMG...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[/QUOTE]

And you have the gall to pretend to be my superior? Your comprehension is all but lacking entirely. You cannot see the forest for the trees.

For somebody that thinks Relativity only applies if we first designate some frame of referance you show a complete lack of understanding of physical affects in reality. They do not care if you are looking or not. They occur, you see them and then you try to figure out why.

But since you have not seen them, it means they do not exist, if you designate them or not.

 

LMAO. Heat falls into the same category (although I suspect you have no idea what I mean and will argue).

Very simply you are taking Newtonian mechanics, which have been shown to be incomplete, as gospel. You are taking relativity and saying it is wrong because it is relative. You are claiming "NO incidence of a differing F = ma for any directional affect" which is just laughably stupid since relativity doesn't claim any such thing.

Can we just ban this liar/idiot already?

 

Pardon me for getting blunt but bullshit.

Pretty close. However, you are going to want to argue about the 60 Mph earth frame vs some other lesser frame relative to the Quasar. But you must realize that really is a moot point. There will be a substantial change in energy required in any case when moving in a frame relative to the Quasar ejecta moving near the speed of light.

The earth frame can be eliminated in some other case and only the Quasar material and your car are involved. There is no basis to include Velocity Addition as a matter of fact. If you car is a space ship in deep space then the 0 - 60 Mph become directly related to the Quasar.



It does not matter that you have designated that as your farame or not. If Relativity is physical reality it will affect your motion even if we had not yet invented telescopes and could see it or not.

If it takes 1 Hp to accelerate it will now take 2 Hp or 200 Hp whatever the numbers you ultimately apply to the case. The point is we do not even see 0.000000001Hp change in any direction for F = ma.

Do not forget that this situation is not limited to your car going 0 - 60 Mph in the earth frame, it also includes particles in accelerators which are also going around in circles (becoming high relative velocity to numerous universal high relavistic velocity objects to these particles as well).

My position has been and remains that the only relative velocity that matters is between the driving energy source and the object being accelerated and not between this object and anyother object in relative motion as a passive observer.

 

LMAO. Show us why I (an oberver on earth) would see any change to your car due to the quasar.

Relativity says I shouldn't. Show us where you think the theory says otherwise... cause you're just demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

 

Do the maths.
Be rigorous, if you know how.

Please explain the point of departure.

You're conclusion is that when accelerating in your car, you should need more energy when approaching that quasar ejecta.
I believe that I have accurately represented your argument to reach that conclusion.
If your argument is different, please specify exactly where. Please be brief. Keep it in point format.

If you see a problem with the argument as specified, perhaps it indicates that the argument is not logical. That's OK, as long you have the intellectual honesty to realise it. You don't even have to admit it - you can simpy let the thread slide, and no one will ever know whether you backed down or not.

 

Why don't you just stop pretending to know Relativity. You clearly do not.

You cannot claim particles in relative motion in an accelerator whose motion to the lab surroundings is any different than your car relative to the Quasar.

Please explain how you see a differance in relative velocity and or relavistic affects.

Come on you claim to be so smart tell us where there is any differance.

Relative velocity is relative velocity.

 

Speak for yourself. This is the most clear cut case of his misunderstanding to date.

 

No, the 0-60Mph is necessarily related to your initial frame of reference, which (as you specified) is at 0.95c relative to the quasar ejecta. The Earth is simply used as a placeholder for your initial frame of reference. Removing it from the picture doesn't affect that frame.

 

Vindictiveness is never a useful debate tactic. Always leave an "out".

 

Clearly everyone here is pretending except for you, right?

Yes, I can. In the lab you are using to frames...at rest (Earth) and in motion (particle). The particle flying towards me at near c in no way stops me from moving towards the particle.

Why? Because I am observing me (and the car) from my own frame of reference. Unless I am on the particle, I see no change in the motion of the car.

This is first chapter relativity. It is sad that you have still not progressed.

We've given him 'outs' numerous times. Think back to all the threads similar to this one which are filled with people trying to explain things to MacM and him still not understanding. Then he forgets about it a week later, claims he was right, and everyone starts all over. I'm not interested in debating him; I'm interesting in him not filling this forum with shit about why his version of relativity is wrong. The sooner I cause his blood pressure to rise to stroke level, the better.