# A Test of Special Relativity

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

1. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
It seems you only learn by rote instruction. How many years did it take you to graduate?

I have explained this numerous times. In the three point referance of A, B, C; A and C or B and C or A and B may be at relative rest to each other. In which case the two point calculation is the same as a three point calculation.

That is the case in every example I am aware of where data such as cosmic muons or particles from accelerators etc., have been generated and/or calculated. But these are special cases and even the correct gamma does not salvage SRT because in the correct three point view you cannot then reverse who is at rest to create the non-existant reciprocity advocated by SRT.

So SRT is only 50% right under very limited conditions where two of the three pointa are at relative rest.

Think you got it now? Or will I need to repeat it many more times?

3. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
What dodge? Come on. Explain, if you can. Stop whinging.

No, because it ignores gravity. Next!

Unsupported claim.

Wake up, MacM. Stop dreaming.

5. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
In physics? One year less than it takes most people. Why do you ask?

Show me your "correct" formulae which require 2 relative velocities instead of one. I'd love to see the general formulae for time dilation, of which SR is a "special case".

I think you need to repeat it for the first time.

Show me the complete mathematics of your new theory.

7. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Because you seem to be a slow learner.

ME, EE and NE, yep 2nd in class by 0.1%. Why do you ask?

I do believe I have shown it at least a dozen times. You simply compute gammas for A velocity relative to C and B velocity relative to C and then generate the effective gamma = gamma A / Gamma B if A is larger or gamma B / gamma A if B is larger.

Not so hard was it.? Note the result is not subject to reciprocity and that it correctly predicts gammas for your cases of tested SRT as well as emperical data for GPS where SRT fails in GPS and reciprocity advocated by SRT is in fact non-existant.

I would prefer using a procedure which is correct all the time than one that is only 50% correct in limited special cases.

I think you should either begin to read my work for the first time, learn to remember what you read or stop pretending and just admit SRT is flawed.

Not really my new theory but merely a post outlining how gamma appears to actually work vs the flawed version you peddle.

8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Been done to many times to continue to repeat.

We (the rest of this forum membership) have multiple times discussed the GR component of GPS and this velocity component of GPS. The issue is about the claim that SRT is used and is proven by GPS. Remember.? Are you getting senial already?

Well, I certainly claim it is impossible. You claim I am wrong but you have never been able to demonstrate just how physical clocks will record less accumulated time than each other. We continue to wait for your proof.

Now with regard to having never been observed or their being any physical evidence, I suggest my statement is valid unless you post herewith such information.

Wake up James R, your slander and innuendo and say so don't cut the mustard as rebuttles of the issues raised.

Show us a recorded case of reciproicty. Show us how you propose that reciprocity is only "Counter Intuitive" and not "Physically Impossible".

Didn't think you could. Hmmmmm.

Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
9. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
What are the postulates which lead to your new theory of "3 reference points"? Please show how your theory is derived from the postulates.

10. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Knock off the irrelevant nonsense. I have stated this is not a theory but a post on how it appears gamma actually works vs the unsatisfactory results from SRT.

Now address the issue and stop thinking you can always put me on the defensive. I am on the offensive, lets see you defend.

11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
Yes, I thought so. Your idea is completely unsupported by anything other than your ego.

12. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
No ego involved. We are still waiting for you to jpost something that at least appears to be on topic and in response to the challenge raised.

What is the matter cat got your tounge. What no examples of reciprocity. What no explanation as to why SRT is not used in GPS? Hmmm. Damn its quiet.

13. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
MacM,
There is a solution to the reciprocity question you have been discussing with James R, Superluminal et al. I have had similar conversations with them also and it was from one such exchange with Funkistar when it dawned on me that there is a unique use of the language here and a trivial solution to the enigma you were focussed on.

When I read that "the observer at A 'sees the B observer's clock running slower (faster)" than his own", I asked what exactly is it that A "sees"? After some back and forth the light clicked on. There is no assumption in the statement that there is any kind of physical demonstration here. In other words "seeing" is not "observing". You, myself and many others have asked the question regarding the impossibility of the two cklocks both actually being physically "lower" than the other. The absurdity of this is logic 101 silly and everybody knows it. So why perpetuate the "seeing" enigma?

From SRT it is said that the A observer, using SRT can perceive, conclude, deduce etc from SRT that he, A is at rest and can assume B is moving and can therefore "see" that his frame clock is moving faster (rate wise) than the B frame clock because of dilation. B can be making the same assumptions regarding A and can conclude that the A clock is moving slower than his own. So where is the contradiction?

There is no contradiction, not in SRT, not in logic, not in experimental analysis. The simple fact is that using SRT they are both correct. The simple fact is that James R, et al are not saying explicitly that the physical reality will demonstrate the fact that both are lower than the other as this would be impossible. If anyone has ever said that expressly then they are in error and everyone should realize this. It seems to me that your many posts on the subject have been used to keep you busy discussing absurdities, keep you distracted and on a subject matter that you can never win because while you demand experimental verification the James R crowd respond only with theory. To demand the simple experiments you do would not serve the opposition well for a number of reasons.

First, the contradiction in the reciprocity would be exposed for what it is, a theoretrical nonsense, forcing the reply that the truth of the matter as claimed by them that each is correct has not been shown errorneous and that the theory is still valid. reciprocity can only mean a "theroetical examination of possible conditions that are merely conhjectured" They must argue of course, that the absolute velocity of the two frames comes into play and that only the frame with the actual elevated speed will show dilation wrt the frame with the diminished speed. This means that the assumption by one observer in frame A must be physically true, regarding the "frame at rest" wrt the frame B which must be moving at an elevated speed. Look how they handle the "twin paradox". Cetrtainly there is no experimental evidence used, muon decay included, to solve the paradox. Ah, yes the accerlation of the object does have an effect, not as I suggested as a souerce of clock rate perturbation, but as a theopretical manipulation of differenct reference frames that are supposed to be equivalent with no regard to any past accelerations of the objects under consideration. Trains and train styations have not been used as examples of frame manipulation justifying anything. The rote equivalence is applied directly. To use the acceleration excuse here will do the SRTists no good.

Any experimental scrutiny of this issue will expose SRT for its obvious flaw regrding equivalence of inertial frames. I had attempted to bring to the attention of the readers here that any relative motion observed wrt the embankment frame Ve, and any earth borne object is all accounted for by the motion that results from the object accelerating wrt Ve. Certainly, Ve is a constant and never accelerates (earth quakes, nuclear explosions etc being exceptions to the general rule). Ve is never observed as a source of any motion that is observed and catagorized as relative motion. The object scrutinized, the A frame with velocity Va, wrt Ve, owns all the intrinsic relative motion.

Even the isolated space ships are not immune to this flaw as, for one example, each space ship had to accelerate from somewhere to gain escape velocity from the home planet. Unless one of the ships A, decellerated to zero velocity, by adjusting its intrinsic speed from a known acceleration history could zero velocity (in an obscenity free form zero velocity would be "at rest" ) ever be true such that when B assumes A is at rest then A would actually be at rest. Then the assumed B velocity being the measured relative velocity would be a correct assimption, but then relativity theory would not apply would it? ]There would still be the easily solved problem of demonstrating time 'dilation'.]

No, beacuse the frames A and B would not be equivalent for the same reason as the Ve and Va are not equivalent. The relativity crowd that screams invective and insult at those that refuse to see things their way are theymonstrous little children throwing their practiced tantrums, or they are conscious propagandists, that for some unmanifest reason, spend an inordinately large portion of their waking life supporting the abject lie known as Special Relativity Theory?

I have reminded James R, he being an attorney and all, that a conspiracy does not have to be proved by direct communication between the conspirators, nor that the members of a conspracy even know the others that are involved in the conspiracy. All that need to be shown is a pattern of cooperation. An example would be a "concpiracy" by major energy suppliers, gasoline for instance, who raised the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump, not from supply and demand [market] forces, but because they can do it arbitrarily by merely raising the prices in a cooperative mode. If the suppliers of gasolne had influence in the source of crude oil then the conspiracy is merely strengthened, could extend to those locations where the mere force of public relations {news releases} would add inordinate effectiveness. For instance if a major supplier of crude made a statement that their production was going to be decreased (affecting the supply and demand curve) the effect would be "global" and would "justify" pump price per gallon increases.

This artificial adjustment of market data would necessarily be a scam as no major refinery would refuse to pay the exhorbitant prices and short themselves on supplies to their customers. The crude oil suppliers would likewise not cut their own throats and actually go out to the pumps and turn the flow valves to the "closed" position. All crude would flow into the refineries as before as would all gasoline flow into the tanks at the gasoline pumps. All that would change would be scam elevated fuel prices. The need for fuel cannot physically keep pace with pump prices at the rate the prices are rising.

Example: If, for instance, a major supplier of crude oil were to find 900 plus of its oil wells on fire, this might signal a huge increase in crude and gasoline prices which history records didn't happen on the scale we see today for high gasoline prices. There are no global conditions, war or otherwise, that approach 900 oil wells on fire. A broken oil transfer line in Iraq may break, (popularized as "terrorist activity") and be used as an example of a shortage of crude, i.e. a lowering of supply and the attendant rise in delivered gasoline prices. And this in fact has been publicised in the "free press".

So MacM, I have to conclude that the SRT forces that we see on this forum are basically propagandia forces and that the prevailing forces of immediate skirmish between yiourself and them belong to the conspiracy. Whether the participants are conscious of their role as propgandists (dupes of a higher level of interest) or not, the result is the same. However, the fact that you refused to surrender is also the major reason that the issue is till alive and it makes me wonder why so many opponents of yours find it necessary to swamp you with criticism, questions and so on. There are the nice guys and the smarmy guys in your opposition and all operate to keep you distracted.

I suggest that those of us who see the SRT as a bogus model of nature begin a cooperative focus on more constructive "motion" topics, and begin to ignore the propaganda stream. We might find it more beneficial to focus on the problem of motion itself. We get only distraction and lies form the SRTists as they all seem so radically committd to maintaining the scam. Notice the jive ass dancing scheme of Quantum Quack as he moves to engage hilmself with James R etc. When the forum was down QQ contacted me and we exchanged a number of communications (twenty plus). QQ had offered to provide graphical support of what I had been stating on the fiorum, then suddenly his communications ceased. There was no warning no hint of why he stopped communicating. One of his emails was a realization that SRT was a complete scam. He mentioned that he was wasting his time talking about it at all and that he was going to focus on his "secret theory" of light 'non-motion', which he has nmentioned a few time in the resurrected forum.

For the above reasons I have concluded that the your SRT opponents in the "reciprocity" discussion have essentially won that skirmish by keeping your attention focussed on a nonsensical triviality while all the time keeping you distracted from more profitiable use of your intellectual potential. They are affraid of you MAcM, pure and simple. However, the loss of that skirmish has only strenthened the priobability of success for the dissdents of ridding the literatutre of future crap re SRT. For all the shit you went through MacM you are nontheless miraculously uncsarred, manifestyly wound free and still deliberate of mind. Use it for your best selfish reasons.
Geistkiesel ​

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,288
MacM,

We could easily continue like this for years. But two sayings come to mind:

1. Never argue with a fool. People watching may soon find it hard to tell the difference.
2. Having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent is cruel.

So, I'm going to stop here.

If you ever have any actual physics to post, I will look forward to further discussions with you. From now on, though, I will not have you clogging this forum with inane repeats ad nauseam of your previous arguments, based on nothing but your own authority. If you post off-topic, unsupported repeats of your arguments in unrelated threads, your posts will be deleted from now on.

Just so you know, here are the statements you must support if you are to discuss them further:

1. There is physical evidence that SRT "reciprocity" does not exist in nature.
2. The GPS system does not need to take into account the relative velocity between the satellite and ground clock.
3. There is only one absolute stationary reference frame, and you know what it is.
4. Clocks are required by relativity to sometimes display "two times at once", in the same reference frame.

Future unsupported repetitions of these statements will be deleted.

I have started a special thread, where you can freely discuss any of these claims. The thread is here:

You can go to town there making as many unsupported assertions you as you like, too. I will not edit or delete your posts in that thread, unless they breach the forum rules. Spam to other threads will be deleted, however.

Last edited: Jun 24, 2005
15. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621

You are getting closer, geist.

The point you are missing is, in A's reality which has its own proper time, its calucluations are valid. ditto for B. But when you talk about 'reality' you introduce the reality of a third frame that CANNOT share the proper time with BOTH A and B. Its is impossible in reality. As such comparing A & B in a third reality for compliance is impossible when A and B have a relative velocity.​

16. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
.
Everneo,
So prove that it is impossible in reality for A , B and C to share the proper time. You use "proper time" as defined by SR theory, so when I say prove the statement I will need more than your pointing to some phrase of SRT. Do you understand this? Proof is more than uttering the SRT. Do you understand?

I didn't miss the pioint about the "proper time", I just didn't use the words "proper time" and you know this. You are just being distracting here. You are going through the same erroneous, bogus actually, analysis that James R uses. To hell with disjointed concepts of theoretical "proper time" and such which are only constructs using SRT. There asren't any variations of time as projected by yourself here, othjerwise you would prove it. If you are saying that at this moment the other side of the universe isn't occuring right now, you are being stupid or flagrantly biased. I said the calculations will both show that B and A clocks are physically contradictory and that it is only the thoughts in minds of the A and B observers that are erroneous.

The A and B observers cannot share the same time? Buillshit. A and B have a relative velocity do they? Did not A and B originate from some planet, somewhere? Didn't A and B start out on the current journey with some velocity wrt some planet? If A is moving at 1000 units wrt Ve, planet earth, and B is moving wiith 1500 units wrt Ve, and the relative velocity whch they measure is 2500 units then their igniorance of the actual velocity wrt Ve dioes not erase those intrinsicv velocities. It only mean that the observers are unable to measure the intrinsic velocity. The only reason they are unable ti measure the intrinsic velocity of their respective ftrames is because they believe they are unable to dio so. They have been mid dirtied by SRT propaganda.

What will the 'clocks show' is a question other than what the observers perceive and believe.

The totality of your post is SRT crap and is void in scientific content. If the earth measurements that are identical to the current velocity, as yet unknown to the A and B observers, the fact that the observers are mulling around in some SRT mud is their misfortune.

Are you saying the A and B observers cannot measure their own intrinsic velocity?
Geistkiesel ​

17. ### everneoRe-searcherRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,621

Trying to keep me on defence? If you say that they share the same time (i would say propertime) as against SRT, i too can very well ask you to prove that.

Rather than your claim that the time is universal, which has no experimental/theoritical base other than your words, i would like you to see why there is no contradiction in SRT as theory and reality.

Initial accelerating non-inertial phase of A & B put them in different 'proper time' of their own and maintained when they have constant relative velocity. Their clocks run with different unit durations. When they brought back, in reverse process, to the earth back : A,B and earth, all three are now at rest with each other, their propertime too is as beofre their journey. Comparing their clock for accumulated time would show you different readings. If you dispute this, prove it is not so. I have no problem in considering your word then.​

18. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Then I don't understand what you are asking. You seem to agree with me that the GPS clock is set to beat slightly slower than normal, to cancel out the gravitational redshift...
Why would you think it wouldn't? The light clock is a clock...

19. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
Then you are wrong, of course.
The various crackpot theories tend to blend together in my mind, and if you do not subscribe to van Flandern's crackpottery, I apologize.

20. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471

Simple question:

When the observers in the A and B frames each assume they are the frame at rest when they both pass a common point in space each moving oppositely with relative velociy of .866c will the clock's rates as measured (printed out on a piece of paper in each frame) the instant the ships pass the common point read the same values for the clock rates as predicted by the observers on the respective frames? Remember now there is no interference of a third frame. WE are merely verifying the observer's predictions.

Also, A predicts he is at rest and B is moving .866c as does B predict the same thing. Will this prediction regarding the attendent predicted clock rates on both ftrames be accurately printed out on a peice of paper?
Geistkiesel ​

21. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
What on earth is "intrinsic velocity"? Is that another name for absolute velocity?

Oh, and Geist, I did, most certainly, tell you how the observers would see the other's clock: With their eyes. Did you not understand?

22. ### funkstarratsknufValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,390
The question may be simple, but I don't understand what you're asking. Who is measuring what?

Messages:
2,621