# MacM's Claims

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Rosnet, Aug 5, 2005.

1. ### RaphaelRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
211
0 is the mathematical prediction from SRT for the clock's frequency at v=c.

Edit: actually it is a mathematical interpretation of time dilation as a frequency contraction. Not directly from SRT.

Messages:
2,250
Nevermind.

Messages:
2,250
Whatever.

7. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
So you are taking frequency = 0 as energy = 0? Interesting since increased energy is what changed frequency.

I think the problem here is two fold:

1 - The assumption that clock frequency has anything to do with universal time.

2 - That clock frequency has any bearing on other physics. It does change our calculations arbitrarily in disregard to any actual physics.

Consider this. If we were twins, you are an olypian and I an astronaut with very fast space craft and a super telescope.

I knew you were running the 100 yard dash and I wanted to watch. I am traveling at 0.866c such that according to you everything you do is at 1/2 normal speed.

You set the worlds record and get the gold medal but I am now confused, your time took almost twice the time of the prior worlds record.

Do you really suggest since I measured your time slow that you didn't break the record or is it merely perception? If I were able to manage to actually reach v = c, would you not have even ran the race?

8. ### AerRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,250
Correct. You obviously ascended to a higher plane of existence as you could only reach v=c if you turned into energy.

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
1 - You are probably at least half right. ascending to a higher jplane is very close to UniKEF's "Qualitative Domain Limit" where objects with energy v > c exist normally but not in your dimension any longer.

2 - Question. It the magic number where you turn into energy precisely v = c. Because nothing what-so-ever happens at 99.9999999999999999% c.

Further what happens when you are going only 99.9999% c and "Whoops" you spot something that became propelled toward you at 0.00001% c. Do you go "Poof"? How do you know that something is not already going 99%c in the universe? Does that mean to you that you can never go over 1%c in that direction without going "Poof"?

Some theory.

10. ### catoless hate, more scienceRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,959
or if you are going 99.9999999999999999999999999999%c, then what happens to the blood that moves 1x10^-30c in the direction you are going? does it go "poof" while the rest of you doesn't? that sounds like a painful way to go.

11. ### CANGASRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,612
You must remember this , as time goes by; a velocity is just a velocity, but reality really is real. Unless you are hallucinating, but that will pass. Just wait and see.

12. ### 1100fBannedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
807

If you would gave try to learn it you would have seen that you must use the relativistic formula for addition of velocities.

13. ### sleeper555Guest

what about one object moving 50%c one direction and the other moving 50%c in the opposite direction. when the two objects pass eachother, what does SR give as for the percieved velocities of one to the other?

14. ### catoless hate, more scienceRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,959
please, before trying to criticize me, know that I was mocking the thing Aer said about turning into energy at v=c. I understand SR just fine.

15. ### Physics MonkeySnow Monkey and PhysicistRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
869
sleeper555,

Amy and Bob are barreling toward each other in the lab frame, each with a speed 1/2 c in the lab frame:
A -----> <----- B

In the rest frame of Amy, Amy measures Bob barreling towards her at a speed greater that 1/2 c but not equal to c (Galilean addition of velocities invalid at high speeds). Instead, she measures him moving with speed (1/2 c + 1/2 c)/(1 + (1/2 c)^2/c^2) = 4/5 c toward her.

16. ### sleeper555Guest

PM, that makes sense. So the result assymptotically approaches c as the lab frame velocities increase. Does this mathematical result change at all if a and b are not precisely on a path to collision?

---------A--------->
---------I----------
<-------B---------

and the measurment of each other's velocioty is taken precisely at the moment where they are perpendicular to eachother relative to the direction of velocity? "I" in this case represents the distance between A & B when they are at their closest? Also does this formula account for Amy and Bob's gravitional effects on each other (assuming they are massive enough to have an impact on surrounding space)?

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2005
17. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Please, before speaking rhetoric realize that SRT is dead. They just haven't lowered the flag to half mast yet.

18. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
I am impressed. You seem not only wanting to learn, but able to do so, unlike many here.

I hope PM gets back to answer your questions or at least make related comments. (I can also learn from, as Pete once said, that smart monkey.)

Until he does I will note, from memory, that yes there is a relativisty effect even if the velocities are orthogonal. It is smaller than the co-linear effects, and in my active physics days, it was called the "quadratic effect."

19. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
To MacM: One of your claims, posted in the now closed thread "Is relativity flawed..." was:

I think this another false claim, but perhaps I just do not know of the case you are referring to. (Or did you just make this up as you sometimes do?)

Specifically:

(1) What decay? (beta emission, alpha emission, gamma emission)

(2) By what? (A radioactive element or the proton. Neutron and electron are stable)

(3) How much is half life changable by? (1% 10% 100% 1000% etc.)

If you can not answer these, are you speaking of some very short lived particle produced in accelerator collisions? Please give reference, to any published source. (Not "MacM's speculations"

)

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 5, 2005

Messages:
2,250

21. ### chrisv25Registered Member

Messages:
14
AMEN!!! MacM Give us an exact reference (author, Title, publisher, vol, pg.) while free thought is good it MUST BE BASED ON PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDINGS TO BE RELEVANT.
.

Messages:
10,104

23. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Thanks for the honest answer. It is just as I thought.

Yes there is lots of support for the fact that radioactive decay is immune to all external influence - Many have tried to modify life times by electric and/or magnetic fields, without any success. It would be quite valuable if it were possible to prolong the life times for radio isotopes used to treat cancer etc. Hospital would not need to throw out the old so soon. Many of those used are produced in nuclear reactors by neutron absorption and have only weeks of half life before losing their value.

But fact than never has even one life-time been extended by external fields does not prove it is impossible to do so. Thus, I can not prove your claim is wrong; but the burden of proof is on one making a claim. No one can prove something is impossible.

For example, you can not prove it impossible for the sun to fail to rise tomorrow. (Perhaps some massive cloud of dust coming from space will hid it entirely for a week.)

We both believe the sun will rise tomorrow, based on approximately 5000 years of records that it did. (There is at least one report that it paused in its advance thru the sky so a bibical hero could finish the battle in daylight, but only a few people, not including me, believe this happened.)

If every minute that a magnetic or electric field was applied without effect to some radioactive isotopes with only 30 seconds or less lifetime is counted as "one test" of ability to change life times by external fields, I bet the evidence supporting (not proving) the fact that these fields have no effect is stronger (i.e. more numerous are the tests that confirm the "no effect" hypotheses) than the tests confirming the hypothese that the sun will rise tomorrow!

If it is possible to do so (and I doubt it) you lower your creditability by making up things / claims. Why should anyone believe your unsupported, many claims for uniKEF???

Especially, when I have given several different math proofs showing they are false? The "small angle" math proof that uniKEF gravity VANISHES as two particles approach each other has been condensed today into only a few lines in the uniKEF analysis thread, so you can send it to your new "NASA friend" - I hope he will either (1)show some error in the math or (2) tell you also that uniKEF is about as bad a theory of the gravitational attractions between two near by particles as one can invent, as I do. (At least he will not refute math by "That is Crap!")

Last edited by a moderator: Oct 6, 2005