Mac's Final Relativity Thread

I have just shown your failure to address issues and also your continued false allegations. Either shape up or give up because what you are doing is futile and making you look impotent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Six years of experience suggests that we won't get past this, but here goes...

Mac, when everyone keeps saying "but that's not how SR works", don't you ever think that just maybe there's a chance that it is your understanding of SR that is the problem?

The whole way that you talk about reference frames and simultaneity just doesn't quite make sense - it's very clear to me that whatever you are thinking of when you say "reference frame" and "relative simultaneity" is quite different from what is actually intended in the SR model.

I fully agree that if SR worked the way you think it does, then it would be nonsense. I implore you once again to consider a different model, a model of SR that works the way that I, JamesR, and the vast majority of physicists think that it works, and look for inconsistencies in that model.

But I don't think that you will, because you can't seem to get over the hurdle of considering the possibility that perhaps time isn't absolute, that simultaneity might really be relative.


Anyway, getting back to the point...
The bottom line is that SR says that the clocks won't be synchronized except in the C's rest frame. Period. There is no way around this, unless you are using a model that is not SR.

 

SO you would be advised to acknowledge the name of the formula "Lorentz" a concept developed before relativity and based on an ether. I'm not advocaing the original concept of ether but clearly something that can curve,bend expand and contract and has physical properties is based on some form of fabric or substance.

Nothingness has no properties, etc.

Partially. When you apply it you must also recognize what is a gamma illusion vs gamma reality. So far you reject that and want to claim what I see is reality. I hope others atr least understand why that is not true.

Recall red glass does not mean the universe is red.

If had had formal answers you would be teaching my work. But I speculate it has to do with an absolute change in energy at some universal level. That is why only an accelerated clock undergoes change. As you know energy comes in many forms both external and internal to a mass. Total energy may well establish the tick rate of material.

Differential total energy.

No. But again "Absence of Evidence" is not the same as "Evidence of Absence".

No. The physical tick rate is fixed universally. If "A" is physically ticking slower than "C" then "C" is physically ticking faster than "A" in all frames.

Yes and "A" & "D" are ticking slower than "C" until "D" is fired back at "C" and once it has come to relative rest with "C" it has been restored to the common initial rest reference frame "C's" tick rate (energy level) such that "C" & "D" now tick in synch and both tick faster than "A".

If in fact you take the position that "D" accelerating away from "A" means "D" is ticking slower than "A" you have just ran head on into the reciprocity problem of the mere relative velocity view.

Time dilation clearly cannot be based on such simple relative velocity or you now have the situation where "D" is ticking slower than "A" while "C" is ticking faster than "A" and both "D" and "C" are in a common rest frame.

Did above. "D" and "C" tick in unison once re-united in the common rest frame.

Never claimed "An absolute state of rest". Such a condition may well never be identified. It is a local absolute rest reference, not some universal absolute reference. Every inertial condtion may become a rest refence.

Therein lies the great question. It is incumbient on us to seek that answer because clearly something is going on that we have no clue how that occurs, just as we have no clue how particle entanglement occurs.

Loaded question. You must ask who has the most "Actual" motion and who is computing velocity. The observer with a dilated clock will compute a higher velocity but on a universal level where you have a fixed time standard relative velocity is symmetrical.

It is the failure by SR to acknowledge the physical nature of time dilation and arbitrarily asserting that velocity between frames is symmetrical that creates the apparent lorentz contraction.

If you treat time dilation as a physical condition where "A's" clock IS ticking slower than "C's" then "A" will compute a higher velocity which accounts fully for the reduced accumulated trip time only if lorentz contraction did not occur.

Yes "A" and "B" have a commom tick rate even though they have a relative velocity. I jsut wanted to make sure you didn't once again try to interject the illusion of motion where each "Sees" the other as dilated.

Gamma = 4.5555n or each appears to tick at 21.95% (this is assuming veloicty addition correction which may be bogus).

Been there and done that. I sent "A" and "B" passed each other and they both had accumulated the same trip time which means they had to tick equally since they had symmetrical launches.

No. I do not see how launch time affects tick rate. It does affect the displayed accumulated time on clocks being compared.

I'm rather sure velocity addition as proposed by SR is invalid. I'm not sure what replaces it if anything.

Recall that distance is fixed in this view so each would compute dv = ds / dt based on their own time standard or dilated condition of their clock. That results in FTL calculations but I have no problem with such results. because at some point we are going to learn what we do not now know and there will be other twists and turns in the physical process such that time dilation as we now compute it is not valid under some conditions.

That is we currently base our view on limited once clock (particle) accelerates away from a rest reference and we see the affect. We then make assumption about what that must mean and further assume that FTL is impossible since that would lead to negative time, etc.

The reality is more likely that our current formulas are only valid for the current test configurations.

BTW:

Nice to actually have a discussion for a change.

 

Pete,

Thanks for the post.

I certainly have considered I might be wrong but when I thought I was wrong, I was mistaken -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Actually The problem isn't with my understanding. It is with getting others to understand my objections. That is I don't have a problem with how SR is actually being applied. That is relying on the frame switching conditon to determine time dilation. Because that is the correct view.

The problem is that they refuse to acknowledge that y doing that they are no longer simply using "Mere Relative Velocity" but are using a form of absolute motion. That is switching frames requires that a clock has accelerated to a new velocity. That is a change in absolute velocity universally.

You may not know what that absolute velocity is or even if there is an underlying velocity to the inertial condition used as the rest frame but failure to acknowledge this fact and the fact that ONLY the accelerated clock dilates results in James R and others asserting that what one "Sees" is the physical reality.

That view re-instates the inherent reciprocity of a relative velocity view and the nonsensical condition of each clock ticking slower than the other at the same time.

You have seen James R once again make that assertion right here in this thread. He stated what you see is physical reality. That is not sound physics and why I insist one MUST treat time dilation as a physical reality and keep the dilated clock in consideration when you switch frame views and compute velocity according to the respective observers.

Doing that and lorentz contraction (for which there has been NO emperical data to support in over 100 years of study and testing) does not occur.

 

There's that hurdle again. Why is it nonsensical? The answer might seem obvious (ludicrously so!), but try spelling it out. Why, exactly, do you think it is nonsensical that two clocks can each tick slower than the other from different points of view?

Is it any more nonsensical than two things each moving slower than the other at the same time from different points of view?

Or two things each being further away than the other from different points of view?

 

Hi MacM.

Let me start by admitting you, Pete and James are much better informed in SR than I am but I do not understand why you say:

I see no reason why any clock needs to be accelerated to switch from one frame to the other. Consequently I have no idea why there is any need for an absolute velocity or argument here supporting its existence.

Surely all the clocks in frame A can be synchronized among themselves. Likewise for all the clocks in frame B. By the defined limit of SR no clock stationary in Frame A is accelerating wrt any clock stationary in Frame B (and conversely of course.)

Let's agree that all clock are digital, (to avoid any motions even of their hands) and being very rich we have a tiny clock at nearly every point in the XY plane of both frame A & B. Also imagine that the two XY planes are exactly parallel with aligned X axis direction and separated in the Z direction by small separation ~10cm. I.e. an observer in either frame thinks the dense network of clocks in the other frame are only 10 cm away from his frame's clocks. He can photograph the display of the clocks in the other frame as the clocks face towards the other frame.

In this 10 space between the XY planes there are two dual lens cameras, C & D, which are similar to those used to make stereoscopic photos. One lens of each camera is 4 cm from plane A's XY plane and the other lens is 4 cm from B's XY plane. (There is a 45 degree mirror 1 cm in front of each of the four lenses which allows the cameras to photograph the digital display of clocks passing by on either X axis. I.e. Both cameras C & D are as close as possible to the X axis of plane A and B. From POV of observer not moving wrt to the cameras the clocks in A are rushing by at +0.9C and those in plane B are speeding by with -0.9C. Also that observer stationary wrt to the cameras measures the separation between the two cameras as 1km and has the single electronic shutter pulse generator exactly half way between the cameras, so at least from his POV they take their digital pictures at exactly the same time.

If I have failed to specify anything, then assume it is perfectly symmetrical also.

After taking many exposures the data from Camera C and D both agree that the clocks in frame A are always 17 minutes advanced compared to the clocks in frame B. There is also complete consistency in the photo graphic data that neither frame has correctly synchronized their clocks. For example the photo taken with exposure pulse M shows a lack of synchronization of E seconds between the camera C & D photos. Likewise the two photos produced by exposure pulse N also have E seconds of difference, for all possible M & N.

Now I did not give the numerical value of E as I am too lazy and probably would not get it correct, but I am confident that any and all of you three could. That value is not important, but by standard SR is not zero.

SUMMARY: With only the camera photographic records you can calculate what any clock shows in either frame when any particular clock in either frame is showing noon. I do not know what more there is to switching {time in one SR frame} time / clock readings from one SR frame to {to time on clocks in} another SR frame.

I went into all this detail as I cannot see any basis for need for acceleration of any clock as MacM has asserted.
So Mach can you tell me why "switching time / clock readings / from one frame to the other implies an accelerated clock"?

 

Pete,

You have missed the point again. I have not and do not object to two observers 'Seeing', 'Perceiving' or thinking they 'Observe' each other as dilated. That is the condition which I have claimed is nothing but an "Illusion of Motion" and is not the "Physical Reality".

The physical reality is that only the accelerted clock (one that switches frames if you insist) becomes dilated. That means mere relative velocity had no permanent physical affect on clocks but the acceleration (a change in some absolute veloicty - energy) universally did.

The issue is when James R and other want to insist the the "Perception" IS physical reality which then re-instates the relative veloicty view and reciprocity. It is not simply "Counter Intuitive" as they want to claim but a physical impossiblity for two clocks to both be ticking slower than each other simulataneously.

 

Hello Billy,

Been a while. Good to have you join us.

OK. I'll leave it to you to explain just how you propose to generate a relative velocity between clocks "A" & "C" when both are initially side by side at rest in a common inertial rest frame. Leave either one at rest and tell me just how the other achieves relative velocity.

You are starting out with two clocks already having relative velocity. Now are you an observer from either one of these frames or are you a remote observer from a third frame?

Please describe once you answer the above:

1 - how you propose to synchronize the moving clocks

2 - and what you expect the emperical data to show about such clocks respective tick rates.

Proceed. Assuming you sucessfully explain how they were synchronized and how you describe their relative velocity.

1 - I assume your cameras are considerd at inertial rest, if so.

2 - you have just arbitrarily asserted that each has a velocity of 0.9c +/- to the cameras (or 0.994475 to each other if you assume velocity addition). Doing so your results are already limited to a symmetrical result.

3 - They will not see each other as dilated but will see each other as tick synchronized. But that is only because you fixed that relationship in your scenario. The reality might be that the cameras are moving +0.05c, "A" is moving +0.95c and "B" is moving -0.85c.

in which case your emperical results will not be symmetrical in accordance with you simplified relative velocity view.

I have done both.

This is totally inconsistant with emperical data of time dilation tests and the math for a symmetrical scenario. In a symmetrical scenario "A" & "B" will tick in unison and having been synchronized will display equal accumulated time. Their times however will be equally less (dilated) relative to a clock stationed with your cameras.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

I have no objections to your setup but I do reject your conclusions as to what will be seen.

How was it that "A" & "B" have relative velocity if one or both have never been accelerated?

 

BTW: To whoever saw fit to move this thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No Mac, I'm not talking about 'seeing', 'perception', or any kind of illusion.

The kind of "point of view" I mean has nothing to do vision. It's something like this:
From your point of view, Sydney is further away than Washington DC.
From my point of view, Washington DC is further away than Sydney.

Both are correct. Clearly, it is not nonsensical that Sydney and Washington can both be further away than each other from different points of view.

So, please try again:
Why is it (the condition of each clock ticking slower than the other at the same time) nonsensical? The answer might seem obvious (ludicrously so!), but try spelling it out. Why, exactly, do you think it is nonsensical that two clocks can each tick slower than the other from different points of view?

Is it any more nonsensical than two things each moving slower than the other at the same time from different points of view?

Or two things each being further away than the other from different points of view?

 

Correct and it was based on an ether theory of relativity.

Correct only if you arbitrarily eliminate inherent reciprocity of the relative velocity view by invoking frame switching which means acceleration or actual motion causes time dilation (Hint an ether view of time dilation) - Hmmmm

Totally false assertion.

You look at 100 years of data and see what is supported by emperical results vs what is not and you apply some common sense physics which tells you that the inherent reciprocity of the relative velocity between clocks view is not a physical possibility.

Funny I never mentioned UniKEF here. What is useless is a theory that declines to be honest and acknowledge that it is actually based on a physical change in velocity (an absolute function) and not on relative velocity between clocks.

UniKEF hasn't gone any where is not entirely true but unfortunately mostly true but that frankly is a negtive reflection on you and other indoctrinated persons that refuse to actually consider it and to explore the possibilities.

I've laid logical ground work now it is your job to formalize the real physical universe, be it UniKEF or not. You will never do that when you decline to look at alternatives to SR and ignore it's shortcomings.

Not a valid comment.

1 - I hope for nothing.

2 - I have presented thoughts to explain what data actually indicates versus the dogma of SR.

3 - Logical thoughts are hardly guesses.

4 - UniKEF is based on re-evaluation of evidence and is supported by a number of successful priori's; as well as a slight bit of calculus.

Please re-read your post. You have "A" ticking slower than "C" in the "C" frame which would be correct.

But you then have "A" ticking faster than "C" in the "A" frame, which is false.

Therein lies your problem. You fail to see why a clock running slower physically will be running physically slower in every frame. How it might "Appear" to tick from some other frame is not the issue.

Only the physical reality is the issue and the physical treality is that physical permanent time dilation is NOT a matter of observer perspective but a matter of actual motion induced by undergoing F = ma acceleration..

Here is where the rubber meets the road. You unfortunately have become so convinced that relativity is a real physical theory that you fail to recognize that you are extrapolating emperical test data from limited frame testing into hypothetical scenarios with mathematical formulas and expect them to hold physically.

The simple truth is you only have data from i.e - a particle being accelerated from a lab machine, or cosmic particles impinging on earth, as emperical references. Both involve only two frames where one is always static or at rest.

You can only justify multiple frame affects if you apply the data you have correctly. That is set a scenario where two particle accelerators are used and particles are launched , as I did in my clock examples, both co-moving and in opposite directions.

Since we know the results of each particle test where they have been accelerted equally ,we know that both particles will be dilated relative to the lab clock equally and it matters not it they are co-moving (no relative velocity) or in opposition (have relative velocity to each other).

Such that we know from emperical data that any other prediction by SR is not a valid physical prediction. We also know from the data that it is always the accelerated clock that dilates.

That is all we know.

Not at all. Just being honest. I do not know the answer to how the universe works no more than you do - AND you don't. But of what we do know my assessment is far more consistant with physics than yours.

I could write a simular assement about your physics. The difference is mine is more consistant with observation and emperical data. You want to claim that what observers "See" is physical reality. That is completely inconsistant with emperical data from tests.

You don't seem to get it. If you are going 50 Mph and I'm parked along side the road then my radar will say 50 Mph. But if you are traveling 50 Mph and try to compute my relative velocity to you bby v = ds/dt (by my clock) you would not get 50 Mph (although at these speeds the difference would be immeasurable).

You shuldn't try mixing being cut with any serious inquiry. They don't mix. Assuming you and your radar gun are at rest then from the measuring device you have the motion but in any absolute terms one doesn't know that until they compare the accumulated time on respective clocks. I may be driving west at 50 Mph such that I am effectively moving east at 950 Mph while you apparently standing still are actually moving east at 1,000 Mph. I know this is a rotating frame but you still get my point..

That would be right IF the frames are correct. This is no different than the case you gave where a rocket fired a missle backwards such that it once again was at rest from the launch pad. Hypothetical scenarios have a problem. The universe doesn't, it's affect on clocks clarifies the reality. Your math merely predicts "Hypotehtically" without supporting emperical data.

Already answered. And your problem is a problem in SR not merely mine. You apply =/- signs to your math indicating which vector ov motion the clock has and that determines if the clock is speeding up or slowing down BUT that math does not answer why you do that since unless you knew the clock was returning to some other initial rest frame then you would predict it is slowing down.

Your math has the same clock both slowing down or speeding up while leaving an initial rest position depending on which vector sign you apply. That is time dilation in SR is inconsistant with respect to relative velocity to an initial rest reference frame, all as a matter of applying some pre-known or assumed fact about either leaving a rest clock or rejoining a prior rest clock.

Clocks cannot physically both slow down and speed up their tick rates at the same time. This shows you math is strictly hyupothetical and does not describe physical reality.

I think this is answered above.

No. They may well see each other dilated but that view will not be supported by physical data.

It seems it likely predicts the "Perception" correctly. As applied it predicts measured physical time dilation correctly but that is by eliminating the "Percetion" of each being dilated due to mere relative veloicty by considering who has an actual change in velocity from some common rest reference frame.

I suggest it is not. I suggest it is more a limit of physical dimension linkage. That is Lorentz Contraction of mass in the direction of motion (not space) causes objects to cese to exist in your physical universe but they continue to exist but at a different energy level universe.

Yep it sure does. It should since it was designed to do so. Just as Einstein wanted the universe to be static and generated math to show it was (until it was proven to be expanding), he also wanted v = c to be a limit so wrote math to make it so.

Yes and no. Not in your physical universe but at some absolute reference level yes. Such object would be at 0.4c in the higher level outside your universe.

 

The answer is rather tirval. The reality of a physical tick rate is NOT a matter of observer view. It is whatever it is and does not change with observer view point.

Observers may "Percieve" respective clocks each ticking slower than the other while having relative motion but that is not and can never be the physical tick rate reality.

 

James R,

Now that I have made a best effort to answer your many questions you need to answer mine.

Given "A" & "B" clocks are both at an inertial relative rest in the same general location and synchronized.

If "A" is launched away from rest and accelerates to a velocity 0.8c from "B" what is it's tick rate compared to "B"?

 

Not with view point, but with velocity. SR says that the reality of a physical tick rate is quite definitely a matter of observer velocity.

Let us be quite clear: SR dictates that the physical tick rate reality is frame dependent. The physical reality according to SR is that clocks in relative motion each tick slower than the other, according to the chosen frame of reference.


SR says that tick rate is relative to velocity, just as 'further away' is relative to position.

 

Welcome to the physics of 19th century. We're a bit further on, now, but thanks for playing!

Philosophy. Oh, look, something else that is shiny and irrelevant!

If you ever graduate from 1st year mechanics, I dread to think how you would cope with quantum stuff: "'The superposition can never be the reality!' thundered MacM, as he spurred his trusty steed onward towards the windmill."