A Test of Special Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    In other threads I have repeatedly pointed out problems with the theory of SR.

    After many many attempts to show simply what the problems were, the rash of attacks and distortions leveled at the efforts made the results unclear to others. (That is they sucessfully confused the issue to a point that others lost interest).

    However, I have continued to sharpen my pencil and narrow my focus to reduce the debate to very specific and clear issues.

    James R, one of several antagonists that like to make personal attacks and cast innuendos, interject appeals to authority and make other irrelevant posts, has now failed to respond with valid rebuttals for two critical issues involving SRT.

    1 - The issue of "Reciprocity" advocated and inherent in SRT. That is the fact that there has not been ONE case in the 100 year history of Einstein's relativity where reciprocity has been observed, recorded in data, or even successfully argued as being physical possible.

    2 - Now I have asked him to please post what the gamma function is for two clocks, "A" and "B" which have a relative velocity of 0.866c. He has refused now (4) times.

    He refuses since he now knows that I can unequivicably and very clearly show it is false.

    I suggest ALL relativists stop spreading their fiat, dogma, rhetoric, if they are unable to properly address these key issues.

    Just a note, not that it will have any bearing of course on posters here but personal attacks and innuendo will not get you off the hook. It will however make it clear that I am correct and you have no valid response.

    Post away.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    This is nothing but a simple lie, and everybody who has followed our discussions knows it.

    To take just one example, mentioned before, the famous muon experiments demonstrate reciprocity.

    In A's reference frame, A's gamma factor is 1, and B's is 2, approximately.
    In B's reference frame, B's gamma factor is 1, and A's is 2, approximately.

    Easy.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I don't like being called a liar by a liar.

    It damn well does not. That was made very clear. The fact that you can't understand that is sad for somebody claiming to be a professional.

    Claiming reciprocity is the ultimate of stupidity.

    Good finally. Now explain to the others what you know I will post next.

    I forgot to mention that "A" and "B" were launched from earth in opposite directions and each has a 0.433c velocity (ignoring velocity addittion since it doesn't alter the conclusion but only confuses the issue).

    In such a case it is well known to be "Symmetrical" and each under goes "Mutual Dilation" of a gamma of approximately 1.109. Don't dare make the stupid statment about "What Frame".

    The only frame that counts is the one supported by the clocks accumulated time which is earth's and the fact that "Relative Velocity" between the clocks produced absolutely NO systemic time dilation between them.

    The only dilation is that of "Relative Absolute Velocity" to their common local rest frame, not the velocity between them.

    So stuff it. SRT is a failure except in ill composed gendankens such as your response above regarding reciprocity and concluding that each clock suffers a time dilation by gamma = 2.000 to each other.

    You are claiming that each clock runs slower than the other. A physical impossibility and total nonsense. It is time for people to stand up and yell "I'll not take it any more".
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    MacM:

    If you had anything to support your libel, you would have posted it. Instead, you continue.

    Yeah, well, we can play "he said, she said" all day. If you could disprove what I said, you would have.

    I guess you're ultimately stupid then. You keep claiming relativity needs your reciprocity.

    i.e. You're now introducing a third reference frame, which I will call E, the Earth.

    The gamma factor of A in the E frame is 1.11.
    The gamma factor of B in the E frame is 1.11.

    Both my previous answers are still correct, since they are in different frames.

    Yes, in the Earth frame E.

    No. A's and B's frames "count", too. You're free to choose whichever frame you want to work in. No frame is preferred.

    "Relative absolute velocity" is a contradiction in terms. Either something is absolute or it is relative. It can't be both.

    Temper, temper!

    SR is a failure except in all the cases I've shown it is right? Face it, it is right in all cases, not just the ones I've proven to you. Or, at least, you can't show it is flawed.

    Based on what? Your say-so? Not good enough, I'm afraid. Try again.
     
  8. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Mac,

    Do you not realize that you are completely correct? Two clocks sitting on a table can't possibly each run "slower than the other". What you are missing is the simple fact that space and time are intertwined in such a way that relative velocity through spacetime places each clock in it's own unique 4 dimensional "frame". Observations from one frame to another can look very odd.

    If we both stand with a large distorting lens between us and look at each other, who is really distorted? From my perspective it's you, and vice-versa. How can we both be distorted at the same time? Your only problem is that SR involves time distortion as well. It is no more or less "real" than the lens example. If I walk to your side of the lens, we all agree and all is well.

    There is no paradox because when the clocks are brought together into a common "frame" one or the other or neither will show a net time deficit. They can never both be simultaneously dilated while they sit on the same table. That is an absurdity. Only when viewed through the distorting lens of high relative velocity do they appear mutually dilated.

    Mac, Geist and anyone else who is fiddling with Va,Vb,Vac,Vx or whatever with a simple classical view of spacetime will always come up with this and other "paradoxes" and shout "See! I told ya!". And anyone who engages them in this arena is bound to lose. You can't prove SR matematically. You have to do some experiments that show that c is constant for all observers and that it is isotropic and then wrap some math around it.

    You anti-SRT folks constantly insist on "just one, ONE, valid technical response!" to this or that. Well, the only way to do that is to invoke frames and apply the known postulates of SR. The instant we do that we are outside of your "classical" comfort zone and subject to your simplistic classical view of the universe. Which, of course, makes things like mutual time dilation look absurd.

    And Mac, if you think anyone here is claiming that "reciprocity" means anything other than the observed mutual dilation from one relative moving frame to the other, then you are sadly mistaken.

    Can you all respond to this rationally? In a few bullet points, list concisely your objections to this and we can talk.
     
  9. Anomalous Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,710
  10. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Oh. I thought we abandoned that thread because it was stupid. My mistake. Sorry.
     
  11. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    I have developed a thought experiment which might be of interest. It is a variation of the muon-reaches-earth observation. What is of interest in this experiment is to consider what a muon might be expected to observe of the rate of a clock on earth. Would the earth clock tick fast or slow?

    First, for the sake of consistancy of debate, I would stipulate the following:

    Average lifetime of muon in muon frame, Tm = 2.2 x 10 ^ -6 seconds
    Average lifetime of muon in earth frame, Te = 88 x 10 ^ -6 seconds
    Distance travelled in muon frame, Dm = .7 x 10 ^ 3 meters
    Distance travelled in earth frame, De = 28 x 10 ^ 3 meters
    Lorenzian factor due to relative motion of muon to earth, Lf = 40

    A laboratory is equipped with a muon detector and a clock. The arrangement is such that a muon happens to collide with the clock at exactly the same time that the muon's lifetime is over (due to natural decay). The reading on earth on the laboratory clock at time of collision, we will call Te2:

    Te2 = {10:00:00.000000am} + 0 x 10 ^ 6 seconds

    Therefore, at the time when the muon was formed, a distance away of De up in the atmosphere, we can calculate the local time reading on this same clock which we will call Te1:

    Te1 = {10:00:00.000000am} - Te = {10:00:00am} - 88 x 10 ^ -6 seconds

    However, in the muon frame, this much time (Te) could not have passed in its lifetime. Even though we know that, due to length contraction, the muon experienced an atmosphere of only 1/40 the thickness that it has in the earth frame, we are currently concerning ourselves primarily with the lab clock reading. I would like to propose three different possible explanations before we go on:

    Explanation 1:
    The muon saw the clock as ticking fast, so that the apparent elapsing of 88 x 10 ^ 6 seconds on the clock transpired in only 2.2 x 10 ^ -6 seconds in the muon frame. In this case, the clock readings coincide perfectly with readings as viewed from earth.

    Explanation 2:
    The muon saw the clock as reading only {10:00:00} - 2.2 x 10 ^ -6 seconds when it was first formed in the atmosphere.

    Explanation 3:
    The muon saw the clock as reading {10:00:00} - .05 x 10 ^ -6 seconds when it was first formed in the atmosphere. In this case, the clock is dilated so as to tick at 1/40 the rate that it ticks in the earth frame.

    Which of these explanations is correct, or at least "most correct"? I would suggest it is Explanation 1, primarily due to the Doppler effect. At near light-speed, regardless of any time dilation, the blue-shifted light from the clock would make it appear as ticking extremely fast. So perhaps it is best to factor out the Doppler effect completely, and then procede from there.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2005
  12. superluminal . Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,717
    Neddy,

    According to SR, each must see the others clock as dilated. You can't reason this out without acknowleging that there is no preferred frame, i.e. the muon sees the earth approaching at high speed and considers itself at rest. If we measure the muon as dilated by X then the muon must measure us as dilated by X also.

    Which of the fundamental postulates of SR do you not accept that leads you to think some other explanation is required?
     
  13. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    Here is a summary of my muon thought experiment:

    Earth frame:
    Muon collides with clock at t = t
    Muon formed at t = t - 88e-6 sec.

    Muon frame:
    Muon collides with clock at t = t
    Muon formed at t = t - X

    Problem: We know that in earth frame, X would equal 88e-6 seconds. Which is most correct way to solve for X in muon frame?

    Explanation 1 (Muon frame):
    Muon collides with clock at t = t
    Muon forms at t = t - 88e-6 sec.
    Earth clock appears to tick fast by 40x.

    Explanation 2 (Muon frame):
    Muon collides with clock at t = t
    Muon forms at t = t - 2.2e-6 sec.
    Earth clock appears to tick at normal rate.

    Explanation 3 (Muon frame):
    Muon collides with clock at t = t
    Muon forms at t = t - .05e-6 sec.
    Earth clock appears to tick slow by 40x.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2005
  14. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    I accept all of the fundamental postulates of SR, including that there is no preferred frame. I have difficulty accepting that the "slower" ticking rate applies to the whole frame, and not just one instance where the two frames are passing locally in uniform translational motion.

    If you have chosen Explanation 3, where the muon is formed when the earth clock reads t=t-.05e-6 seconds, then I would hope that you could also explain how the clock happened to be at this exact time at the moment the muon formed. By earth clock standards, this time has not been reached yet. Is the muon forming at a special time in "the future" of the laboratory clock?
     
  15. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,811
    Relativity of Simultaneity, which is also a natural consequence of the fundamental postulates of SR. If you work it out from the postulates, you will find that it has to read that exact time.
    Meaningless statement. The muon is created when the Earth clock reads a certain time in the muon frame, and the muon is created when the Earth clock reads a certain time in the Earth frame. These two frames just do not agree at what time this is, just as they don't agree as to their relative clock rates.
     
  16. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,811
    Better yet, why don't you work it out for yourself. I'll get you started:

    Start with the standard light clock thought experiment. Add a second light clock which is aligned along the axis of relative motion. If the distance between source and mirror is 'd', then the time it takes for the light to travel from source to mirror is t'=d/c in the frame of the clock. this means that a clock sitting at the mirror and synchronized with a clock at the source in the frame will read a time of t' when the light hits it.

    Now determine how long it would take for the light to travel from source to mirror in the frame that has the relative velocity to the light clock, taking into account length contraction. Now in this frame, the light must also strike the mirror when the mirror clock reads 't. So what time does the clock at the source read at this time in this frame (remember to take time dilation into account)?

    If you do all the above algebraically, you will come up with an expression that will tell you how much the clock at the source is out of sync with the clock at the mirror, due to the relative velocity and distance between the two.

    Armed with this expression you can attack the muon scenerio. Assume two clocks in the Earth frame in sync and one located where the muon forms and one on the surface. The muon forms when the clock next to it reads 0. (in the Earth frame the clock will also read 0.) using your derived expression, what time does the clock on the Surface read in the muon frame? (remembering that in the muon frame the distance btween the two clocks are length contracted.)
     
  17. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    Here is my first-draft answer to my own dilemma:

    Perhaps I am just too curious about the effects of Doppler on the special relativity theory. Of course, I would have rather if someone else had addressed this before my humble self. My initial impression is that if we discard the Doppler effect, we are dismissing a very significant source of missing clock ticks. With a Lorenzian factor of 40, neglecting this might not be in the interest of testing reality.

    Furthermore, are we sure that the Doppler effect is symmetrical in this case? Is the earth-bound observer not at an advanage since they benefit from the foreknowledge that the muon forms at a certain distance away from the surface of the earth? If not for this knowledge, would not the Doppler effect make it appear as if the muon had formed quite near to the earth (perhaps the same factor as length contraction)? Likewise, with its clock ticking fast at 40X, and therefore further supporting Explanation 1?

    Perhaps I just need a treatment of SR that includes the Doppler effect, and then I will understand better.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ignoring non-responsive gibberish.

    I have proven you wrong numerous times. I don't need to keep repeating that act.

    Unfortunately your post demonstrates who's stupid. I don't claim SRT needs reciprocity. I have stated and posted scientific papers which show that reciprocity is inherent and considered normal by all but apparently you.

    Of course their considering such nonsense normal says a great deal about their ability to think rather than memorize or join the crowd as another sheep.

    Close enough since I already posted 1.109

    That is bullshsit. The only frame that is reality is the one that is supported by the accumulated time on the clocks. The A/E and B/E frames which I claim is actual relativity is supported by data. Your frame (SRT's two frame nonsense with reciprocity) is not supported.

    There is a differance in preferred and correct you know. Being able to choose such frame does not make it valid physics. Now address the issue. A/E and B/E are supported by data , A/B and it's reciprocity is not.

    They are even supported in cases that are not symmetrical, which is the case in GPS where the frames are (S)urface, (O)rbit and (E)arth Center Rest.

    But an (S) (O) frame yields an incorrect time dilation and is unsupported by data and the falilure of reciprocity it creates, just as your frames do.

    Only if you close our mind. Assuming a rest referance and a velocity of 0.433c relative to it, it is an absolute relative velocity. So your statement is blatantly false.

    No temper here just advice for a stuborn attitude.

    Here you go again. Pick and choose your data. Pick a correct gamma result and ignore the absence of the reciprocity. SR can't be half right. It is either right or it is wrong and it is wrong because reciprocity never exists and it is only partially right in cases where the third frame is inherent and at rest to one of the two SRT frames. i.e. The (S) and (E) frames have no relative velocity and the (M)uon frame then computes a correct gamma. But to claim the muon clock is also faster than the surface clock is totally unsupported conjecture and has never been recorded and never will since it creates a physical impossibility.

    It seems my say so is consistant with physical data, yours is not, therefore I suggest my say so if far superior to your rhetoric.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Come ON SL. Don't think yo can cheapen my posts that easily. I have never suggested two clocks resting on a table side by side would be dilated. You aren't even funny here.

    Also do not pretend to suggest that I do not understand the contorted suggestion being made by relativity about space-time. Why don't you try instead to actually address the A/B with relative velocity = 0.866c issue SRT gamma = 2.000; when it is then pointed out that they are mutually dilated because they were launched in opposite directons at 0.433c (ignoring velocity addition) and therefore accumulate no systemic time dilation between them and are instead dilated by a gamma of 1.109 relative to their common rest frame.

    Unless you answer why your 0.866c relative SRT velocity is not being recorded I suggest your theory is bullshit and flawed.

    Double talk. Just answer the issues given you. Failure to do so means SRT is flawed.

    ]

    Really. So then you are claiming A and B in my scenario will not be dilated by 1.109 gamma (each) relative to the common rest frame? I should hope not.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    MacM has not fiddeled with Va, Vb, Vac, Vx or whatever. MacM has present you a case in SRT by SRT standards which you cannot prperly answer so do not suggest I need to do anything. It is you that need to address the issues I raise.

    Please be specific. State just where my A and B at 0.866c relative velocity scenario deviates in any way from a standard SRT gendankin.

    Go ahead tell us. Now address the damn issue and stop waffeling.

    Horseshit. "Mutual Dilation" is NOT reciprocity. In how many threads do you think SRTist's have posted tables of accumulated tick of clocks in 10 hours test period where they show A running slower than B and B running slower than A.

    Two clocks CAN ONLY BE MUTUALLY DILATED" IN COMPARISON TO A THIRD REFERANCE otherwise there simply appears to be NO dilation. HEHE. You have just smarted yourself.

    So talk and I would hope the first words you speak are explanations for the issues I raised.
     
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    MacM:

    There's no point in my responding to your personal comments and unfounded claims, so I'll only respond to where you raise a physics issue with a real argument rather than your say-so.

    The great majority of tests of SR have been done right here on Earth. Do you believe the Earth is absolutely stationary in space and the universe revolves around it?

    The Earth travels at 200 km/s relative to the galactic centre. If I do a relativity experiment on Earth, then, according to you, my calculation of gamma for whatever object I'm examining will be incorrect, because I haven't taken the "absolute velocity" of the Earth into account. If my particle B travels at 0.866c relative to me (A) on Earth, then my gamma will be wrong and should give incorrect results according to you, because I should really be calculating gamma with respect to the absolute standard of rest C, which presumably is not the Earth, since the Earth is moving.

    But strangely, when I measure the time dilation of B relative to A, I get exactly the result I would expect from a gamma calculation of B relative to A, and I don't need to worry about the velocity of C, the Earth.

    I've proven you wrong in yet another way. Want to try again? I'm sure you do.

    The rest of your post is contentless, so I'll ignore it.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    What is the meaning of the term "rest frame"?

    Answer: the rest frame is the frame in which the object is at rest (doesn't change its position coordinate).

    If A and B are launched from Earth (E), then are A and B at rest with respect to Earth?

    Answer: No.

    Is Earth a rest frame of A or B?

    Answer: No.

    Are A and B at rest with respect to each other?

    Answer: No.

    Do A and B share a common rest frame, then?

    Answer: No.

    Learn.
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Good and stop posting your unfounded personal innuendos while you are at it.

    Don't be silly and don't try to put words in my mouth. I have never once said the earth is at rest. The fact that you do not recognize the validity of GPS and correct relavistic mathematics isn't my problem. They use a "Common, local, preffered rest frame" ECI. That is a lot of adjectives that you just skipped over. You do understand english do you not?

    False. All earth based experiments and data have the (L)ab frame, (E)arth frame and (P)article frame. It just happens that in these cases the L/E frames are at rest to each other and the mathematical gamma results are the same using SRT's two point referance system.

    The important differance however is to understand that the L,E,P system prohibits reciprocity and since it doesn't and cannot exist and has never been recorded; plus the sucess of GPS, means we should abandon the artifical SRT two frame system of relativity.

    Never said any such thing. Infact I have repeatedly shown the an L,E,P frame will result in the same gamma as SRT's L/E frames. The only differance in such a case is that the L,E,P frame system eliminates the invalid conclusion of reciprocity.

    See above, you are dreaming.

    You have only proven you either cannot read, do not understand english or deliberately distort what has been said.

    Now address the issue. Since in my A,B,C scenario A and B actually will record a "Mutual" dilation by a gamma of 1.109 due to their 0.433c relative velocity to C but do not record your gamma = 2.000 due to their actual 0.866c relative velocity, how can you continue to ignore the fact that SRT is flawed?

    So pointing out how you pick and choose what data you want to consider and ignore that which doesn't conform is "Contentless"? :bugeye:

    We all know why you ignore that information. You have no justification to continue to support SRT.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2005
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Please read the S,E,P scenario and digest it's veracity. You are correct as to what SRT claims but that view is not the only view one can take. In the S,E,P scenario P dilates relative to E but E does not dilate relative to P (which is what is actually recorded in physics data) and that means that the earth clock runs fast compared to the muon (which is what is recorded physically) and is completely compatible logically.

    We simply do not need SRT and its unsupported nonsense.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2005

Share This Page