Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Billy T, Aug 12, 2005.

  1. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Then you accept that if 3E8 markers pass by in 0.577 seconds with a speed of 0.866c then there's half a meter between them.

    Good for you.
    Well, either that or contracted meters. Here's the thing: I agree with you that the ship and the markers pass each other by at a rate of 5.196E8 markers pr. ship second. However, that does not translate to a velocity of 1.732c, because the dimensions are wrong.

    You've already agreed that the meters and times have to come from the same frame. So what you are assuming is that the 1 one earth meter between the markers translates to 1 ship meter. But that's what you were supposed to convince us of! And in fact, it's blindingly obvious from the example that it's wrong! Length contraction merely states that length in the moving frame (i.e. the spacing between the markers) appear contracted relative to lengths in the rest frame (the ruler on the spaceship), as viewed from the rest frame (i.e. to the man on the ship) Now, that is exactly what the example comes out wiith: 3E8 markers with a speed of 0.866c (in ship meters per ship second) passing by in 0.577 ship second, makes them out to be half a ship meter apart!
    I have addressed your scenario, and demonstrated that it leads to length contraction. The only way you can keep length contraction out is by redefining the concepts of distance, time, and velocity, and denying the relationship of d = vt between them.

    No dice. I will not allow you to change the rules to fit your whim. The man on the ship can measure the speed of the markers, he can measure the time it takes for them to pass him, and he can use that information to conclude that there's half a meter between them. He doesn't need to use any information from my frame at all, nor does time dilation come into it.

    Now answer the fucking questions. Are those measurement valid or not?
    But how can you ever measure that distance in space in the first place?
    Except, of course, that you deny that those standards.
    It's right there. "Length contraction is prohibited". What kind of argument is that against length contraction? Furthermore, you even acknowledge that you have to fundamentally redefine the concept of velocity (and thereby inevitably distance and time). Notwithstanding that, it begs the question of which frame's measure of distance one should use.

    It is obvious that if we measure thing in the usual way (that is, the non-MacM way), then the man on the ship will measure the distance between the markers to be half a meter. Now the distance between the markers is "really" measured to be 1 meter. However, that has to have been measured the in the Earth frame. How does the man on Earth know that his measure of a meter is a "true" measure of distance? He can't have used the MacM way of measuring distance: How on Earth (pun intended) would he know which measure to use? He has to assume that he is the one at rest, and that d=vt (where v is the velocity of things measured in the usual way) is actually true in his frame in order to elevate his measure of distance to the "true" measure. Otherwise, he has to tag all the distances as being "Earth measured distances", which begs the question of why Earth measurements are truer than ship measurements.
    The trip time of the moving observer is the accumulated time on his clock. Proper time is physical time. He does not need to account for time dilation. So that's a tentative no, because you haven't specified how the "accounting" is done.
    Length contraction, just as time dilation, follows directly from the isotropic propagation of light. You cannot have one without the other unless you break that isotropy. In which case you at the very least have to explain why experiments show that isotropy, and suggest a new experiment that can differentiate between your new theory and relativity theory.
    d=vt. If v is frame dependent then so is d.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jan 26, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Please read what you've just posted. You "show" the ruler invariable because it "can't change".

    Here a great proof of A:

    Assume A. Therefore A. QED.

    What, you don't buy that? Why on Earth not?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Pete and Funkstar,

    Sorry but both your deliberate posts either ignoring or distorting what I have posted makes it futile to proceed with this enlightenment. I will not therefore continue to do point by point rebuttals of your posts on this issue.

    For the record - LAST TIME - here are the facts:

    In a case where a craft (observer, clock) has accelerated and the craft moves toward a rest observer at 0.866c the moving clock ticks at 1/2 the rate of the rest observer's clock.

    That is predicted by SRT and is emperically demonstrated. What has not been demonstrated is that such condition is due to relative velocity between the two observers. Infact such claim seems physically baseless. Only the craft that accelerated has any basis to undergo change.

    Now recognizing that the craft clock does and will indeed accumulate 1/2 the indicated trip time at the velocity in accordance with the rest frame view, over the spatial distance, SRT has the audacity to claim that the craft traveled only 1/2 the distance.

    This is absurd on its surface since it can be shown that the trip time is FULLY accounted for by the reduced tick rate of the clock and spatial dimension could not have and did not change.

    Understanding this simple fact one then must look at the moving frame to see what is going on.

    In that frame compared to the rest frame, where d = vt, which means v = d/t it is obvious that d still = 1.0 and t now equals 0.5, such that v = 1 / 0.5 = 2.000.

    The emperical results are the same as SRT (excluding reciprocity) but the underlying basis and consequences are radically different. A craft approaching the speed of light therefore doesn't see the entire universe contract to a few millimeters but sees the whole of the universe pass by in milli-seconds.

    Given the SRT view while such a craft is accelerating near v = c the dimensions of the universe are changing at many multiples of v = c. So there is no overall differance in the view that holds distance as invariable than holds velocity invariable.

    The differance is in the recognition of the underlying physics. Now rather than being obtuse and stubborn (also insulting) it seems to me that it would be of greater interest to explore the impact of such changes in our physics understandings.

    What happens to simultaneity in this view? What other issues change consequences and how.? How does the measured invariance of photon velocity fit this scenario.? How does this fit the results of the M&M experiment.

    Frankly, since I have envisioned this for some time and have given it considerable thought (you haven't), should you get off your high horse and look you will see it resolves many issues and it verifies the energy dependant (frame dependant) view of photons.

    Further that there is simply no data to dispute this version of reality vs that of SRT. So stop arguing the SRT view and lets see some scenarios based on my view and show the consequences in terms of real physics, supported by rational interpretation of emperical data rather than the deliberate ignoring of physics and changing measurement standards when changing frames that is done by SRT.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Hehe, I believe that is MacM's favorite proof! He should be an economist

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Good so far.
    Absolutely not. In the rest frame of the earth (or whatever) special relativity has the ship moving the distance it moved. In the rest frame of the ship, the ship doesn't move at all. Nowhere is the claim made that the ship moves half the distance.
    Again your "simple fact" is not a fact at all. It's an assumption on your part.
    Mixing frames to the best of your abilities, aren't you. Well, if the man on the ship tries to measure d and v directly, he will not agree with your calculated values above. His d = vt says otherwise. Why is one frame's d=vt more worth than the other's?
    Those two things are only different if you allow the universe to move at superluminal speed (as directly measured from the ship) in the second version.

    I don't get you, MacM. You agree that time dilation happens. But that inevitably leads to length contraction, so you out of the blue redefine calculus! Suddenly, velocity isn't the time derivative of position anymore! You must be able to see how forced that appears to everybody. It's especially odd since you've already accepted the first mind-twister of relativity theory: that time dilates. If you are able to accept something as "physically impossible" as that, it should be a short leap to simply accept what millions of physicists have done before you: That nature doesn't work like you thought it should.

    Think about it: Your "gut feeling" on how nature works is based on your experience with it (and possibly via your ancestors, instinctually) on a few orders of magnitude, under very specific conditions. However, once we move outside of those narrow confines, we can see that "gut feeling" simply doesn't work anymore.
    Relativity theory doesn't hold velocity invariable. Velocity is frame dependent: It's the derivative of the position function wrt. time, and since both position and time is frame dependent, so is velocity.

    Relativity does claim that two observer moving relative to another will see each other as having the same speed relative to themselves, if that's what you mean.
    Do your own work.

    And even if, by some miracle, you could conjure up a consistent mathematical formulation of the above philosophising, and it turned that there was an interpretation of previous relativity corroborating experiments in your theory, it still wouldn't be enough to convince anyone that your view is better.

    For starters, it is less elegant. Relativity theory has no need for a redefinition of time, distance or velocity. And your view is less powerful, too. It can't cope with objects in relative motion without knowing who "really" accelerated, which applies to every object in the universe. Finally, you haven't been able to propose a single experiment (that I've noticed) in which your theory would predict something different from relativity theory.

    If I tried to replace your Mercedes with a hodge-podge monstrosity, which drives slower, requires more gas, and won't get you where you're going unless you start from an unspecified location, would you consider the trade? Because that's what you're proposing.
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Ditto. Assume length contraction, hence length is contracted. Even though the accumulated trip time mandates no such length contraction.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Let us know when you want to pull your fingers from your ears, Mac.

    Short memory. Assume invariant c, hence length is contracted.

    To calculate velocity, we must use a ruler stationary in the frame of interest, and clocks stationary in the frame of interest.
    Mac agrees to this rule.

    To calculate velocity in the spaceship frame, Mac uses a ruler in the Earth frame.

    He says this is OK... despite it directly conflicting with the agreed rule.

    He says this is OK... which makes one wonder why he agreed to the rule. Was it a mistake?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2006
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Well, he's postulating that the rulers don't change from frame to frame, so the spaceship rulers *are* the earth rulers. That may not be a reasonable postulate, but that's his position... To the extent that he's mixing frames, he's doing it by axiom, so the proper criticism is to show why the postulate is a bad idea, rather than complain that it differs from special relativity. The best way to go would probably be to establish that invariant distance and dilating time is incompatible with invariant c. Which it is, right?
  12. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Here's a simple question for you:
    Does SRT leads to impossible or illogical conclusions under the following conditions:
    1) Length is not necessarily absolute
    2) Simultaneity is not necessarily absolute
    3) c is invariant in non-accelerating frames
    4) Flat spacetime

    If you think it does, then that's what I'm interested in discussing.
    If you want to discuss the validity of the conditions, then we can do that... but then we don't need to talk about SRT, because we all agree that SRT is not valid if those conditions are untrue.

    So what discussion do you want to have:
    The conclusions of SRT under given conditions?
    Or the conditions themselves?
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    But in that case, why does he maintain that rulers and clocks must be in the same frame?
    If all rulers are equivalent, then surely one can use any ruler with any clock to determine velocity?

    That's the key point... not that he's differing from relativity, but that he's differing from his (repeatedly) stated position:

    Dead end. Mac's latest position is that the invariance of c is an illusion of some kind.
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member


    False. Assume invariant c and velocity is frame dependant, length is invariant. That is the point. The length does not change considering the time dilated clock computes trip time. I was referring to the chart of clocks based on your post where the assumption of length contraction is made and then claim the chart proves length contraction.

    Have you not realized that you can also do a chart assuming gamma = 1 / (1 - v<sup>3/c<sup>3</sup>)<sup>1/3</sup>. Do you believe having done so proves that gamma equals the cube function instead of the square fuinction? I would hoope not.

    You are making the false and silly error of equating proper times. That is a dilated second in the moving frame is an equal time interval of a second in the rest frame.

    That is quite a feat since the clock accumulates only one half the number of ticks in the same test period (trip) while ticking at one half the rate. Now it stands that if time (tick rate) were not dilated between frames and the clock then accumulated 1/2 the time, length would be contracted. But since the time intervals of the dilated second and the rest second are not the same, length cannot be dilated.

    Yep and the results at 0.866c by physics is:

    v = d / t = 1 / 0.5 = 2.000

    Nope. It just happens that you want to assume length contracted space in the use of rulers to support the arguement for length contracted space.

    According to the universal standard since t and t' are not equal you have changed standards between frames. Recognizing that mandates that length DID NOT and CAN NOT change.

    It is OK once you understand that the rulers are identical between frames.

    Nope. The rest ruler is identical to the moving ruler.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2006
  15. DaleSpam TANSTAAFL Registered Senior Member

    Hmm, I guess you forgot my recent post where I derived the length contraction assuming only the invariance of c:
    Here is a website that you may find helpful:

  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    While we surely disagree on the conclusions here you at least seem to be listening.

    How do you justify claiming length contraction when the trip accumulated time of the moving clock is accounted for by the dilated tick rate.?

    I am not interested in assumptions about invariance of 'c' or postulates. I want the issue addressed directly by physics.
  17. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Mac, DalesPam and I have both shown in simple ways how length contraction follows from the invariance of c.

    No, the chart of clocks was not it. That chart was intended to partially demonstrate the internal consistency of relativity to Neddy Bate.

    So it's OK to measure velocity using an Earth ruler with a spaceship clock?
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Assuming #1 is baseless and without merit.

    Would depend on the validity of other aspects of SRT. Since #1 is clearly false there is no basis for further questions.

    I certainly agree with the term if qualified as "Measured as invariant" but the conclusions of SRT do not follow from that assumption. Sorry but they just don't.

    I am no expert in this area for sure but in my opinion there are only 3D and it is flat. Everythingelse is crap.


    Look at your SRT scenario assuming I am correct and length is invariant and velocity is not.
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Because they must.

    Flase. Any ruler but a clock stationary in the frame calculating velocity.

    But I haven't. You just don't seem to grasp what I have shown.

    Lets try once again. Draw a horizontal line on a piece of paper. Mark it as 100 m in length in a rest frame. Now assume you have something moving at a velocity of 1 m/s (used in lieu of but representing 0.866c for simplicity) as viewed from the rest frame.

    Make a clock tick mark above the 100 m length line for every meter (every second of trip time) according to the standards of the rest frame.

    Now acknowledging SRT and the emperically demonstrated fact that in the moving frame The clock will be ticking at only 1/2 the rate of the rest clock make moving clock tick marks below the 100 m line.

    Note these tick marks are twice the seperation interval of those in the rest frame and you will only get 1/2 as many marks. Understanding that the clock is ticking at 1/2 the rate and still comparing velocity as seen in the rest frame the accumulated time is only correct if the 100m is still 100m in a 1/1 correspondance between frames.

    Now that you have local d = 1.00 and local t = 0.5 it follows that v = d/t = 1/ 0.5 = 2.00 .

    It is but that isn't required to demonstrate the falicy of SRT having both length contraction and time dilation. Only one can exist and time dilation at least has been demonstrated. Hence length contraction is out and frame dependant velocity is in.
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    And I have shown that based on your assumption length contraction does not occur but frame dependant velocity does.

    Since I have NEVER said that I certainly object. However:

    If you understand that the earth ruler and spaceship ruler have a 1/1 correspondance then certainly you would be free to use any ruler combined with a local proper time clock.
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I didn't forget anything. You forget that you length contraction conclusion is invalid when time dilation is considered. The end result of all this analysis is that it demonstrates that infact the invariance of 'c' is not an invariance of the same photon.

    Your assumption that I need help is ill advised. I will have a look however just to see what it is you think is a problem.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    If you are on this stuff let me recommend you get off immediately. Your skull bone is thick enough already.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    If length is invariant, then of course any SRT scenario will lead to impossible conclusions. If any of the specified conditions is untrue, SRT must be invalid.

    Actually, #1 and #2 are a specific lack of assumptions. It's not required to assume that length or time are frame dependent, only to not assume that that they are not.

    I notice you didn't answer the question of whether SRT leads to illogical and/or impossible conclusions under the specified conditions. Have you ever considered that question? If not, I ask you to do so now. It's considered a mark of intelligence to consider a proposition without necessarily agreeing to it.
  23. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    So it's not OK to measure velocity [in the spaceship frame] using an Earth ruler with a spaceship clock?

    But it is OK to measure velocity [in the spaceship frame] using any ruler with a spaceship clock?


    Edit - perhaps you're reading more into my words than you should. I've added clarifying clauses in square brackets.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2006

Share This Page