Ok. I can't wait anymore. I was driving behind this old lady the other day and she was going so slow that we started moving backward and time reversed. She had a gamma of approximately -2.000!!! (I knew it was gamma cause she looked like a gammaw! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Just a simple effort to indicate that it is one clock vs the other that is dilated by a gamma equal to 2.000. -2.000 is not a mathematical result but a lable added to denote which clock is dilated. Don't be obtuse. I'm not. If that is the best you can do you are in deep trouble.
And I'm sick of you dodging the issueand jposting distortions and innuendo. We have nothing to discusss until you post how you propose that two clocks can display accumulated times that are each less than the other when compared in the same frame. Do that or shut the hell up.
SL you can play these fucking wor games all you want and continue to ignore what I have actually presented which demonstrates what is considered at rest andhow that jproduces a correct gamma calculation in every case and your view only produces a 50% correct answer in very limited and special cxases. My view happens to be far superio. Yours advocates physical impossibilites which you have not been able to show have ever been jobserved or recorded because they are impossible. If you claim they are not impossible I challenge you to knock off the cute comments and just tell us how it is you propose to get two clocks to display accumulated times that are each less than the other. Do that an you win. Fail to do that and you suck wind.
I've addressed this issue elsewhere and will not waste time here pursuing your nonsense. Now just tell us how you propose to have two clocks display accumulated times that are less than each other. Do that you win. Fail to do that and you and you smart ass comments and distortions suck air.
Ok. One more time: Where in the name of all that is sane, did you ever see anyone make this statement???????? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I know you seem to have a bit of different view. You like to talk about perceptions or "Seeing" and as I have told you I am not discussing "Seeing" I am discussing accumulated times on clocks; which James R has claimed is physically real. I have made it clear that this discussion only relates to physical accumulated time dilation caused by inertial relative velocity. Now if you are prepared to agree that inertial relative velocity between two points (clocks) does not produce time dilation of accumulated time by physical clocks then we can say my tutering has been useful.
I know you seem to have a bit of different view. You like to talk about perceptions or "Seeing" and as I have told you I am not discussing "Seeing" I am discussing accumulated times on clocks; which James R has claimed is physically real. I have made it clear that this discussion only relates to physical accumulated time dilation caused by inertial relative velocity. Now if you are prepared to agree that inertial relative velocity between two points (clocks) does not produce time dilation of accumulated time by physical clocks then we can say my tutoring has been useful. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok Mac. First, please explain the red part. Did JamesR or anyone ever even remotely imply this at any time? If so, then know now that none of our kind (SRTists) would ever intentionally say such a thing. What say you?
MacM: I asked you how this "common point of reference" - this "special" frame - can be found in any particular case. You didn't answer. When things get too hard, you just refuse to respond in any meaningful manner. Instead you whinge about how you're badly treated, and then forget the question which was asked. Don't think I haven't noticed that you never respond to anything substantive. How can we detect this "likely" motion? How do we identify your special, preferred frame in any particular problem? Do we have to ask you (the special frame guru) each time? Get this: THEY CAN NEVER DO THAT! If this was your claim, then we'd be in agreement. But it isn't. Work out what your claim actually is. Or do I have to explain your own argument to you again? You're like a little child throwing a tantrum because he doesn't get his own way. "But Mom! I WANT the teddy bear! I NEED the teddy bear!" "Why do you need it?" "I don't know! My view is far superior! I WANT it!"
by geistkiesel: If the SRT wants to place the observer in special locations on the frame and grant special powers of observation then that is what they do. This SRT 'do' includes the negation of the concept of motion, here the frame. According to SRT no moving observer is able or willing to observe his motion wrt anything, correct? 2inquisitive, why don't you tell us what exactly the observer "sees" from the positions indicated here and from the positions you suggested he be placed. I am not particularly interested in conclusions, I am asking specifically what does the SOB see! ============================================================= OK, geistkiesel, you are the physicist and I am not, but I would like to point out what I was speaking of, as you seem to have misunderstood my post. I was not arguing FOR Special Theory, I was point out you were not consistant with its methodology. Do you see the title of this thread? A Test of Special Relativity. As has been stated so many times, you cannot 'test' a theory unless you follow its stated principles. Reciting Newtonian Mechanics will not disprove STR, for example. Newton is well known by most 'relativists' and reciting his work, which I greatly admire, will not change any minds. Now, my other point is about frames of reference. You are a physicist, I would have thought you would be more familiar with them. To begin with, something most supporters of relativity fail to openly recognize is the first broad catagories. The global frame and the local frame. The global frame is the one I like, as much more precise information is garnered from it. An example of the global frame is the ICRF. Another example is the ECI frame used in GPS.The coordinates of a global frame do not necessarily coinside with any observers point of view. The observers can move through the global frame, either or all of them. The coordinates are fixed at a non-moving point, and expand to infinity in all directions, the ECI and ICRF as the examples. STR does not like this frame. The other basic frames are the local frames, both inertial and non-inertial. The coordinates of these frames are attached to the observer, again extending to infinity in all directions. The observer is stationary in these frames, as they are ATTACHED TO THE OBSERVER. The coordinates move along with the moving observer, he does not move 'through' them. I don't like local frames for this reason, the same reason your diagram was incorrect ACCORDING TO RELATIVITY THEORY. When an observer considers himself always at rest in his frame, the beam of light follows a different path, and is timed differently than it would be if the observer could state he is the one in motion. As I said before, this is where relativity gets its time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaniety equations, as light always follows an invariant path when emitted from a frame at rest. The frame in motion is the one that measures the unequal propagation and reflected lengths and times, hence, in STR the observer has to consider himself always at rest for STR to work correctly. A 'moving frame' in STR lingo is still referring to another frame that is in relative motion wrt his 'rest' frame. So, to use your diagram, you have to argue 'what is an inertial frame', and win the arguement for moving observers in STR. Moving observers are inconsistant with relativity's inertial rest frames. Only 'the other guy' can move in STR. Clear, I hope? by MacM: "The actual value determined emperically is approximately -7.2us/day. It just happens that that value is obtained if one uses a gamma effective as being Gamma O / Gamma S or relative velocities of the clocks to a third common preferred local rest referance." ============================================================== This statement is not accurate, as I have explained to you many times Mac. The "-7.2 us/day" is what is suggested by Lorentz calculations, NOT AN ACTUAL EMPIRICAL MEASUREMENT. Yes, GR calculates about +45 us/day dilation due to gravitational potential, and 7us/day is deducted from this to give the +38us/day per-orbit adjustment, BUT, the clocks have to be adjusted twice more while in orbit to get them synchronized correctly with ground clocks. The 7.2us/day figure is only a calculated prediction, not a empirically measured amount. The only effect actually verified from relative velocity effects is a second order Doppler shift in the SV signal frequencies. They are not, however, measured as to an exact amount and are handled by the orbital information and algorithims stored in the GPS ground receiver.
2inquisitive, No, he's not. If you can spell physicist, you are more of a physicist than Geist. P.S. Has anyone ever told you it's awfully hard to read your posts? Don't hit the enter key unless you really want a break at that point - let the editor decide. And use paragraphs to break up key segments of your post.
How appropriate that MacM has seen proper to make himself scarce, now that it has unambiguously been pointed out to him that his "falsification" rests on nothing more than an extremely basic error. Geist, I'm still waiting for your response to my answer. You know, mutual time dilation explained via lightclocks...
Ok Sl, it sounds like you are saying that the observers moving relative to each iother at .866c (each accelerated to .433c) will see the other's clock as running slower than their own. This is your meaing of mutual dilation. You do recognize do you not that it sounds logically inconsistent to say each real existing clock is running slower that the other's clock? It sounds counter intuitive, irational, impossible. .. Here is what I suggest that from the time the A and B are moving at .433c each or .866 relative velocity for the A and B frames iemit the ir clock rate as pips or tics/second, where each tick is time stamped and numbered as measured in their own frame. Each frame assuming a velocity at rest wrt to the other will assume also that their clock is running faster than the other. In terms of time dilation each is thinking the other is running slower than his own. If A sees his own clock is ticking at a rate of ten and he calculates the other is ticking at 8 then how do we demonstrate this? Certainly a mere assumption should have no affect on the physics and only the measurements are of any significance. So if each synchronizes clocks with the C stationary frame each wil appear as moving the same as seen by C. A cannot say to B I am runnuing at 10 and I see you at 8 and have any agreement as B will say the same thing. As shown earlier, if A slows to the B velocity and they compare clocks the A will be seen to have run not as much the B clock. Similarly if B slows to A 's velocity. This test proves one thng at least that the symmetry insistsa that the clkock are moving at the same rate as each is slowed to the same number rate when slowing with respect to the other. But you must say more than "I don't understand". Just show me that A and B clock rates are slower than each other when they make the statement. have them neet at a point in space and exchange rate numebrs or somthing, Perhaps have each frame cut their cloccks after moving 1 hour and compare the numebers. Symmetry will produce identical numbers in each frame of the data looked for here. Predicition neither A nor B will be seen with clock rates measured faster than the other's rate. The above is all dependent on the SRT postulates of light are being used properly. prove it SRTI asay. Geitkiesel
2inq] relativity s the "Net" velocity between two points and disregards the fact that both have (or likely have) motion. ” In the case of earth borne measurenments where the embankment is one of the inertial frames we always know the embankment doesn't accelerate that accounts for the relative velocity of frame and embankment. When we use the physically defined midpoint of the moving photons as our common coordinate system all SRT ambiguity evaporates. We a have an unambiguous reference frame from which SRT becomes redundant as the Speed of light is now measurabkle wrt v = 0 reference coordinate. And see how simple it is to construct, Need another absolute velocity detector? 2inq, I know this might not be up to the standards I suspect are required to start and et get even one T ists tio abandon their folly. but who is in hurry. Where and what can the observer that seeing is mioving seentthis if sugneufucabntl This invariant is maintained by results that prove the invariance of the point. The postulates of light, idepednece if miotuion of the ophoton wert sourece of light, the isotropic motion and constant velocitry of light. for the the arrival back at the point P after traveling 2ct and after reflecting from the Left mirror clock. The fact of simultaneous arrival of both photons at the moved observer point The measurement of various placements of the reflecting photons wrt P, wrt measurement of t' = t(2vv)/(c - v) the difference in time for the round trip of photons int thye stationary and moving frames, where t' > 0 when the frame is moving. When we recognize the use of the velocity equal zero coordinate we have elinminated many of the biggest problems in physics. Here is how you measure the v = 0. And another way here to measure absolute velocity. Geistkiese Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! l
I wasn't aware you had done this iI will have to check it out. Lety me guess you used a gamma fuibnction. . Geistkiesel
