Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by MacM, Jun 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    And having read this paragraph, I'm more certain than ever that I understood you correctly. Indeed you are wrong, there very much is a choice of frames in which to synchronize the clocks. If they wait until the one astronaut finishes accelerating and then set the clocks to be synchronized from his POV after the acceleration is complete, his clock will end up recording more ticks than the one who supposedly sat still, i.e. the Earthbound twin will have aged less instead. So the choice of frames in which to synchronize and set a common t=0 origin very much makes a difference to your result, and it resolves the issue you're having with "reciprocity".

    I'm pretty sure both the Michelson-Morley and Fizeau experiments have been done with moving lab frames, and relative velocity is still all that matters. In any case, for argument's sake let's pretend all of these experiments have only been done in a lab frame at rest w.r.t. Earth. Are you telling us the Earth is always in some kind of magic, god-approved preferred rest frame? If that's your contention, how would you explain stellar aberration?

    Let's see, you don't believe in the work of Fizeau, Einstein, Michelson and Morley, etc., or you decided that even though Relativity correctly predicts and explains their observations, there is a better explanation out there and you're just going to yell and complain to us until it's found. Yet somehow I'm supposed to spend days poring through mountains of restricted-access proprietary SLAC particle data, writing tedious code telling my computer how to analyze the data and make it into a nice pretty little chart for you?

    And then what will I get for all that effort and copyright violation? Either I'll get some kind of strawman objection of total irrelevance to my analysis, or you'll choose to put my data on hold and claim my analysis is only tentative at best. Doesn't seem like it would be worth the time or effort when I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, and there are people of infinitely greater respect and recognition than myself who have done these sorts of analyses and published their results in peer-reviewed scientific journals. I'm willing to cite some articles containing particle lifetime analyses, for particles of different shapes, sizes, energies, velocities and subatomic composition. All of these different particles have their lifetimes dilated according to the Lorentz transformation, so I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that strapping them to a rocket makes them all slow down in exactly the same way, if acceleration and associated classical effects were the only cause for this change.

    Ok so while we're playing the illusions game, can I argue that electricity is only an illusion as well? Perhaps there's no such thing as electric force- charged particles know where all their charged buddies/enemies are hanging out and either want to go there or get the hell away from there as fast as possible.

    You've been shown or referred to tons of empirical data supporting Relativity. Your response has consistently been "this only proves that absolute motion causes time dilation". In other words, you just keep plugging your ears and sticking your tongue out every time one of these experiments is mentioned.

    Fact 1: All of these experiments not only demonstrate time dilation, they demonstrate time dilation in the exact manner predicted by Relativity
    Fact 2: The Earth is not in a universally-preferred rest frame, and can't be because it orbits the sun

    So now it's time to take your fingers out of your ears, listen to the evidence, and explain in detail how you can predict the exact same results with reference to an absolute, universally-preferred rest frame. Any further claims on your part that there's no empirical support for Relativity will simply be met by demands on my part that you give an alternate explanation for this evidence.

    You find it more rational to believe in a concept you haven't even fully developed yet? You don't even know if your idea would work in practice, you don't know if it would even apply to what nature does in the real world, yet you think it's a more rational approach?

    I haven't said much about length contraction up to this point, and I missed your scenario, so a repeat or reference to post # would help. Sounds from the looks of it like you may be trying to set up a paradox like the famous "giant truck in tiny garage" paradox. According to the Lorentz contraction, a 30-foot tractor trailer is capable of fitting into a 15-foot garage if it's moving close enough to the speed of light. You might object that from the trucker's point of view, they ought to see the garage contract even smaller than 15 feet (and they will indeed see this), so how can the house owner see the truck park in his garage? The answer is that the house owner sees the front of the truck line up with the front of his garage and the back of the truck with the back of the garage at the same time, thus arguing that the truck is parked. From the trucker's POV, the front of his truck and back of his truck are lined up with the respective ends of the garage at different times. This means that if the homeowner sees the truck fit in his garage, it's guaranteed that a split second later the truck either bursts through the wall or else crunches up like an accordion.

    Put atomic clocks on two space probes and send them flying around, far enough away from the Earth and sun so that gravitational time dilation won't play a role and SR can be applied. That would be a nice, simple, direct and definitive test in my book. There should also be several different clocks used and, if possible, operating on different physical mechanisms, so one can conclude it unreasonable to think acceleration affects all these clocks and mechanisms in exactly the same way. They could also try different schemes and reference frames for synching the clocks when they start the experiment, to further confirm what I said at the top of this post.

    Only in the same sense that electromagnetism is also just a theory.

    You're talking about GPS here, right? Not going to pretend I'm an expert on GPS, but from what I've read, you can't handle it in SR alone because you have to account for gravitational time dilation as well (gravitational time dilation has been proven for decades, BTW). Otherwise, GR says you can use any coordinate system whatsoever for your calculations, as long as you always apply the correct tensor rules for transforming between coordinates. The key is that not all coordinate systems were created equal, some are far more convenient than others depending on the physical situation. In any case, SR can't be used here because gravity plays a significant role, both on Earth and as the cause for a GPS satellite's circular/elliptical orbit.

    Whose definition of realism are we going by here? I always thought realism involved believing in what your experiments are telling you instead of passing them all off as illusions.

    Good, your honesty here is appreciated. Our challenge to you and like-minded people is to come up with an alternative explanation that makes accurate quantitative predictions.

    Physicists don't refer to absolute motion because it's never been needed. Once you have the relative velocities, that's all you need to calculate the resulting effects. In light of what I said above about how the results depend on the frame in which you define time "t=0", there has never been a need for a physicist to stop and question whether or not the Earth is at absolute rest. If they did have a reason to consider absolute rest, someone would have already found the universe's divinely-ordained rest frame and we'd know how it's moving with respect to us. But no, even in GPS calculations, if you redid the calculations with Earth moving a constant 1000 kilometres per second through space, you'd still get the same result for how clocks on Earth must compare at the end. No mathematical fudging required.

    I'm happy to let those who desire an alternative seek it for themselves. When I first learned about Relativity I was also looking for a viable alternative, and I made very similar arguments about reciprocity and the supposed paradoxes that ought to arise in this case. Then over time as I learned more, I realized I didn't understand Relativity as well as I had thought, and discovered how much math and experimentation underpinned its foundation (it blew me away, was much more detailed and complicated than I had initially thought). I gave it a shot, and my conclusion at the end is that Relativity is practically inevitable unless we throw away everything we've discovered going back almost all the way to Newton, maybe beyond.

    So yeah, it really seems like your objections to Relativity are personal rather than factual, and that's fine, you just have to accept that we have different views on what's "logical" and "rational" when it comes to describing the way things work. I consider Einstein's work logical and rational because it's mathematically self-consistent, and doesn't disagree with anything we've observed in the lab and in daily life, while on the other hand it's certainly very famous for anticipating a huge range of effects before they were actually first observed. To me, Newton's picture of the world with all these mysterious invisible forces and whatnot seems a more irrational view of the world, and while relativity and QM don't have a full explanation of why the universe works the way it does, they certainly do narrow the mystery down.

    So if you can come up with a working alternative, only then could I seriously consider whether your viewpoint is truly more rational. Given all the previous failed attempts at finding an alternative to Relativity, often from some of the greatest mathematical minds in history, it doesn't look like a very promising line of work.

    Well, my only appeal to what SR says is in response to when you make (what I see as) false claims about it. I never said that because SR says something, that automatically makes it so in reality. I only refer to what would happen according to the theory, to clear up misconceptions as they arise. I never called you a crank or a crackpot, because those names don't apply to you. You haven't come out making extraordinary claims, demanding that all of science stand upside down on its head and bow to you. The accurate word for you would be stubborn- you're clinging to an older way of thinking, and from our POV you're causing yourself to miss out on a lot of progress that newer ways thinking have allowed. But it's your call, I'm always open to the idea Relativity could be fundamentally disproved if the data necessary to disprove it was obtained some day.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,973
    CptBork,

    Check out this link:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-Faulty-Michelson-Morley-Experiment-19709t.php

    It's a good read.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    1,390
    I have to admit, MacM, that I'm more than a little skeptical that you have anywhere near the sort of expertise that would allow you dismiss a PRL article based on the abstract alone. I'm not sure you really get how utterly, supremely, fantastically arrogant that is.

    A patent including schematics for an IC (I can't view the images, and I don't really care) does not intimidate me - I'm not an electrical engineer (or a physicist, for that matter) but I do know a little about (mainly digital) circuit design, and if you think that 1st year stuff such as holes and Thevenin's theorem in any way lends you an ounce of credibility wrt the PRL article above, then you are wrong, plain and simple.

    Oh, and if you really do think that
    and
    then I suggest you write a letter to the editor of PRL to that effect.

    Or perhaps even write to the authors of the article directly: Tell them of your "obvious" conclusions. I'm sure that, if your objection is correct, they'll overlook the fact that you failed to even read the fucking article!
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    FOR ALL WHO SEE THIS: I'm on chemotherapy and my eyesight has gotten so bad that I have to get just a few inches from the monitor screen to be able to read it. So if I have numerous typo's, spelling errors, etc or I don't respond to some lengthy diatribe posts that is why.

    ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************


    I suggest this is nothing more than mathematical conjecture based on theory but you have NO emperical data to support that claim. Now either post emperical data showing that an accelerated clock has been synchronized with a stationary lab clock and subsequent comparision of the clocks in a common rest frame showed the lab clock dilated.

    If not then we merely have a difference of opinion about relavistic affects and that makes neither of us right nor wrong.

    1 - M&M no. Fizeau tests involved light going through moving mediums which showed ansitrophy inconsistant with invariance.

    2 - I fail to see how steller abberation has anything to do with the discussoion. It involves the apparent shift in a stars location as a function of earth's traverse motion. If anything the requirement that the light from such star must carry no traverse motion of it's own seems to draw into question the basis for the view that light flashed across a moving frame will have forward momentum and appear to propagate diagonally.

    If orthogonally projected light does not carry forward momentum there goes your scenarios for SR where light projected orthogonal from a frame in motion appears to move diagonally to a statiojnary observer.

    Where in the hell do you get this? I do believe that based on other information and common sense that some of the conclusions of these works are unsupported and suggest there are more rational alternatives causes.

    Don't need a chart fabricated by you. I need you to post emperical data showing that reciprocity has been physically demonstrated as real an not merely the result of illusion of motion.. That is a resting lab clock must have been shown to have accumulated less time than an accelerated clock subsequent to having had relative veloicty - not during relative velocity.

    You are screwing up once again. I have never claimed "Acceleration" causes time dilation. Acceleration causes an absolute change in inertial velocity. The "Actual Velocity" induced causes time dilation but not the "Relative Velocity" generated to the resting observer.

    You can do whatever you want but what you have just posted is totally irrelevant. Perhaps you should attempt to actually rebutt my view rather than introduce nonsense.

    Totally false. They only have demonstrated that an accelerated frame dilates compared to a resting frame ( or less accelerated frame). If my statement is false then post proof.

    Where have I ever declared anything being a universal rest frame? I HAVE NOT. In GPS the ECI frame is a local preffered absolute rest frame. If you have trouble understanding the terminaology let me clarify for you.

    1 - "Locally" means - NOT Universal" although every frame is universal. The difference being it is not THE absolute rest frame of the universe but only the absolute rest frame in some local relative velocity consideration.

    2 - "Preferred" means you cannot switch frames and declare GPS orbiting clocks are at rest and the ECI has velocity.

    3 - "Absolute" means "Actual Velocity or Motion" vs mere " Relative Velocity".

    5 - "Rest" simply means an inertial frame.

    And I demand that you keep this honest and not try to attached never claimed conditions to my view. I don't have to prove my view is functional. You have to prove yours is correct. That means you must post emperical data to support ALL claims of your theory. Since you are unable you think you can divert attention by demanding I produce a formal counter theory. Nice try but no cigar. You can either post proof that my view is falsified by emperical data or your theory is eitherv supported. . Now falsify my view or support your theory...

    This is partially true. However, in one of the formal debates with a high energy particle physicist he stated that my view could be true but due to it's inherent complexiety he would still use SR. And I agreed with him. I have said more than once that I am not claiming to have the answers but I do have the questions. And until you or somebody answers those questions correctly I will continue to point out the shortcomings of SR.

    No. I am not setting up the "Bug & Rivot" or "Barn & Pole" paradox. Those are based on mathematical interpretations of SR which include spatial contracton.

    My view is simply spatial contraction does not exist. That view is based on the fact that I am confident that time dilation is a real physical condition and as such that conditoin must be respect in all frames. That is to say being a physical ereality as demonstrated by emperical data precludes it from being frame dependant.

    That said I use numerous scenarios to make my point.

    ******************************************
    \
    Given city "A" and city "B" are known to be 60 miles apart with strict and there are radar units at each mile marker set to take photos of vehicles exceeding above 60 Mph. Further two cars are going to go from "A" to "B". Bob is driving a vehicle in top knotch condition, his speed-o-meter works, his o-dometer works, his crusie conttrol works and his watch is keeping perfect time. Bill on the other hand is driving a clunker and his speed-o-meter doesn't work, his o-dometer does but his watch batteries are low and he doesn't know that his watch is only ticking 9 times to Bob's watch's 10 ticks. That is to say Bill's clock is time dilated.

    Since there are so many radar traps along the route Bill asks Bob to set the pace so they don't get a ticket. Bob sets his cruise control for 60 Mph and they drive side by side from "A" to "B".

    Upon arrival Bill looks at his watch and exclaims "Damn it Bob we went 60 Miles in only 54 minuter that is 66.666n Mph and enough to have gotten us a ticket, what is wrong with you?"

    Bob a bit confused says wait a minute we were ging precisely 60 Mph and since we were side by side that must mean you on went 54 miles.!!!!!

    Now who's view is STUPID. The basic physics facts are this

    1- If time dilation is a physical reality (and it appears to be) then it is not a matter of perception by frame.

    2 - Keeping the dilated condition of the clock in the moving fraeme means the observer will merely "Compute" a different velocity, not travel lesser distance according to SR. You need to keep in mind that velocity is a computed value based on the ratio of two physical parameters v = ds/dt or change in distance per change in time.

    Time for Bob and Bill are different each has their own proper time standard and the travel time accumulated by thier clocks fully account for the trip ONLY if distance remained the same for both.

    Still talking about acceleration causing time dilation - I NEVER HAVE.

    Irrelevant.

    I wasn't specificlly but it is approprite here.

    1 - GR is applied. Orbit gains about 45 us/day due to gravitational change.

    2 - but the velocity of orbit affect is - 7.2us/day for a net affect of about 38us/day gain in orbit..

    3 - The ECI is not a matter of convience it is required. The simple fact is (most people don't know this) is that all surface clocks at sea level tick the same tregardless of latitude. That is a clock at either pole or the equator (or inbetween) stay synchronized.

    4 - Regardless of being convient the fact is the ECI (Earth Center Inertil) frame used in GPS precludes you from claiming the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has velocity. It is therefore a local preffered absolute rest frame.

    5 - GPS is a very interesting topic to discuss. James R for example first said (as does Niel Ashby and others) that both GR and SR MUST be used and are used in GPS that GPS is a perfect esample of SR being proven to a high degree of precision.

    Unfortunately after being hammered by some facts James the nswitched sides and claimed "SR cannot be applied, orbit is a rotating frame and hence is non-inertial. Sr only applies to inertial frames" Many others have also aargued that point.

    However the fact is many scientist point out that free-fall acceleration in a gravity field is inertial and that orbit is a form of free-fall and hence is inertial and SR scould apply. The problem is the only way the formula (LOrentz) from SR can be applied and get correct results is to compute orbit velocity to compute the gamma of orbit based on orbit velocity to the ECI and then to compute gamma of a surface clocks velocity to the ECI and subtract where the difference in gammas is the emperically correct value to compute time dilation which is -7.2 us/day...

    If you merely take (orbit velocicty - surface velocity) and use that figure in the SR formulas for time dilation you only get a -5.4 us/day affect.

    So in th final analysis there is a wide range of opinions about GPS. I hve mine and it is not inconsistant with many scientist knowledgable in the field although there are opposing opinions. So pick your side but be prepared to support it by physics.

    WEBSTER:

    Realisim - 1) a tendancy to face facts and be practical rather than imaginative or visionary

    i.e. - If I'm color blind, I am wearing red glasses or there is a red filter on my equipment, the experiment results as I see them will not be real they are an illusion.

    1 - This has always been my position although itv has not been generally ppreciated here -

    2 - There are more than one possible explanation for some of our measurements and I certainly have not formalized a view that could be presented as a definite alternative. I merely point out that SR as it stands is not physically real. Useful but not real.

    3 - IF an when anyone succeeds at formulating such a theory they will be highly honored. In the mean time others; including you, should cease being so defensive and begin to actually look for and consider alternatives that make sense.

    So says SR but there is no supporting emperical data for that claim. All emperical data is based on computing time dilation of who switched frames (i.e. accelerated and has actual motion to a resting clock) and not merely relative velocity dilating the resting clock. Once you consider who has actual veloicty you are no longer using relative velocity. You are not doing SR calculations your are doing LR calculations.

    More Earth being at absolute rest. Where do you get this stuff - NOT FROM ME.

    Earth moving 1,000 km/s would apply to both surface and orbit. What is your point?. I see none. It is irrelevant to the fact that proper time dilation is based on orbit veloicty to the ECI a preferred frame and not between surface and orbting clocks due to mere reltive velocity.

    Relativity is very much real. It is only that Einstein's relativity is flawed and mere "relative Veloicty" is NOT a cause for physical change.

    Physice is based on "Cause & Affect" what cause do you claim would make a resting clock phsyically change tick rate? I didn't say appear to some remote observer with motion to the resting clock to become dilated, I said physically accumulate less time when compared in a comon rest frame subsequent to having had relative veloicty.

    It is perfectly fine to disagree or have different views but each must be able to fully suport their view. I have not ssen you support SR with respect to it's inherent recxiprocity.

    VSo if you can come up with a working alternative, only then could I seriously consider whether your viewpoint is truly more rational. Given all the previous failed attempts at finding an alternative to Relativity, often from some of the greatest mathematical minds in history, it doesn't look like a very promising line of work.[/quote]

    I and others are seriously looking at alternatives but refusal to do so yourself in spite of the incompleteness of emperical support for SR really is a sad commentary. You don't care that your favorite theory has not been fully tested and even appears untestable as to reciproicty and you choose to iggnore the fact that it is untestable which is a standard for falsification of a theory.

    In other word if I put forth a concept which cannot be tested you would without hesitation assert it is falsified by virtue of being untestable. Please do the same forSR. We need an even playing field.

    As long as you are truely open to the fact that you are speaking hypothetically about some aspects of SR and are not declaring them physical reality you and I are in total agreement. I'm here because James R and others have repeatedly claimed reciprocity is physical reality and that reqires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. Seeing each other dilated while in relative motion is entirely different than declaring them as being dilated to each other physically.

    No and I appreciate that - ha. I wasn't meaning to suggest you had. But others here have many times. My point for posting thatv was the fact that I am ameanable to change given proper cause. If you post emperical data proving reciprocity then I will drop my objection.

    And you don't find yourself and other rellativist as being stuborn? He He. I am open to change but you must provide bonafide cause for change.

    Well we simply disagree on the consequences of my view. You say I'm missing out. I'm not I am familiar with current events in physics but I do believe I have an upper hand by not being snookered into accepting things that don't add up just because some aspects of SR hold true mathematically.

    Keep in mind nothing done todate holds SR as the correct view exclusively. What I do is accept that which seems proven physically but cast aside that which is physically impossible and conclude therfore thec theory, as useful as it is, is not correct andvthat there must be some alternatives to the basis for ourconclusions.

    i.e. - The apparent invariance of light simply must be based on physics we do not yet understand and different observers are viewing different photons, not the same phon with an invariante quality to propagate in a frame dependant manner.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Why am I not surprised?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Pragmatic is not arrogant. To make unsupported claims in scientific tests is arrogant.


    I don't disagree that it would be more forceful to be able to quote specific entries in the paper. However, I stick with the impression based on the description in the abstract that what they recorded was nothing more than variable columb penetration due to varing collision velocity. Not spatial contraction between the two vortices as they approched each other

    Not at all but my post has at least got you to qualify your background, not an engineer, not physicist. You do seem to have beginners knowledge of electronics perhaps even more in digital. My point was that you should then know that penetrating (tunneling) the junction in a tunnel diode has to do with columb forces.

    You should aslo understand the seeing the "Collision" zone shrink with higher collison velocity does not in any way support the claim of seeing spatial contraction between two movng objects approaching each other.

    It is a gross overstatement - i.e. "Fraud" to have claimed so.

    Oh, and if you really do think that

    Now that we know your qualifications to be challengiong me I'll back off the tit-for-tat name calling and negative innuendo. You simply have no business challenging me. Perhaps you should actually read what I have posted and consider facts instead of hanging on coattails of physicist that promote SR without fully supporting it.
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I have not. I have ONLY used the procedures YOU tolded me to use in Post 93. You said if only one of two clocks, b, leaves their common rest frame then after the other is traveling inertially wrt to clock a, at Vba speed, then the Time Dilation of clock b wrt clock a, TDba, is to be computed by:

    TDba = SR (Vba) where SR ( ) is the standard SR formula for TD, which we all agree on. (MacM’s method 1)

    In post 93 you also said that if both a & b leave their common rest frame, C, and subsequently are at rest in different inertial frames, B and A, both moving wrt to C then TDba is computed by taking the difference between their separately computed TDs wrt the clocks of C or symbolically;
    TDba = {TDbc - TDac} = {SR (Vbc) – SR (Vac) } (MacM’s method 2)

    In post 198, I demonstrated mathematically that these two procedures lead to different, self contradictory, results. You complained that post198 was too complex, too mathematical, and long for you to follow.

    Thus, I set up a new scenario with clocks a & b launched from a common rest frame C to land on a table (or icy hill side) fixed in a different inertial frame, P. ( C was Earth and P was Pluto in my scenario, but now to be more general, just call them frames C & P, which unlike Pluto and Earth are actually inertial frames.) Both a & b remain on that table (or hill side) for 100 years (local time). The problem is to calculate above defined TDba when both are in their final rest frames for two, almost identical, cases:

    In case 1, both remain exactly where they landed in P and then after 100 years both blast off but the rocket of clock a had been struck by a micro-meteorite and lost some fuel so clock a ended up in an inertial frame, conveniently called A, which was not moving away from P as fast as the frame B where clock b came to rest. Clearly when they are out of fuel in frame, at rest in frames A and B respectively, their last common rest frame, CRF, is P.

    In case 2 only clock a remained exactly where it landed. Clock b slowly slid on some ice for 100 years at 1cm/year (moved 1 m from where it landed before both blasted off). That “slower than sick snail”, one meter long, slide is the ONLY difference from case 1. Thus, when both are later at rest respectively in Frames A & B their last common rest frame, CRF, is C, not P as they were never at mutual rest in frame P but had relative speed of 1cm/year.

    The difference in last CRFs makes the velocities wrt their last CRFs inserted into SR( ) very different in cases 1 and 2 calculations of TDba when both are out of fuel in their final rest frames A & B. A larger (or any significant) difference in TDba cannot be caused by case 2’s slower than very sick snail speed of 1cm/year!
    That is a ridiculous result of your false theory! Time dilation does not depend up the past history of the clocks.
    No MacM that is NOT my scenario, not even close. You have thrown the baby out with the bath water! The whole point of my scenario is to include that frame P in which clocks a & b actually do come to mutual rest (case 1) or only ALMOST come to mutual rest (case 2) to show how only 1cm/year (in case 2) motion of b wrt a forces you to change last CFR and insert very different speed into the SR( ) formula.

    I can understand why you want to avoid any scenario which show that only 1cm/year speed (instead of 0cm/year speed) of clock b wrt clock a while both are on a table (or hill side) of P shows that your theory is obviously silly, but I cannot accept your attempt to divert us to an entirely different, irrelevant, scenario so I ignore the rest of your post, which concern your new scenario.

    I will however, respond to your concerns about my not telling the “vectors” and give graphical details of my scenario:

    All four frames. C, P, A, & B share a common X-axis and all motions are along it. Here is a typed drawing of the X-axis. The designation letters are at each frame’s XY coordinate system origins (0,0).

    C---------P----------A-----------B
    And here it is again a little later to tell the direction of the relative motions and speeds of the frames:
    C-----…-----P------------------A-------------------------------------------B

    I had to put … above as the speed of point P(0,0) the origin of P, wrt origin of C, C(0,0), is very large. This makes the velocities your version of SR inserts into SR( ) of case 1 and Case 2 very different. Perhaps C(0,0) is near Alpha Centaurs and P(0,0) is near our sun. (That also would define the X-axis orientation wrt the “fixed stars” if you insist on vectors, but only speed is needed with the common X-axis.)

    Here is a drawing of the table (or hill side) on which clocks a & b spent 100 years:
    __a__b________
    ....|………....……|…. (These dots represent the dirt the table legs are stuck in.)

    Recall in case 1 the separation between them never changed during the 100 years, but in case 2 clock b moves 1m in a hundred years causing their last CRF to revert to C instead of being P as in case 1. According to YOUR version of SR that 1 m movement on a table makes a huge difference (case 1 vs. case 2) in the time dilation TDba later when both are again inertial, a in frame A and b in frame B.

    Again: How silly can one theory be?

    As you know, standard SR is not concerned with past history, but only with their current relative speed, Vba and that is the same for case 1 and case 2. So standard SR does not make your ridiculous claims of a large time dilation differences between case 1 and case 2, is caused by an ancient historical period when b was moving at 1cm/year wrt a while both remained on the same table.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2009
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    And avoids making rediculous predictions as illustrated in my just made post 606 or self-contradictory ones as illustrated in post 198.

    Yes. The M&M experiment was repeated at 6 month (and other) intervals to change the velocity by up to twice earth's orbital speed. Sometimes it was done with the entire interferometer floating in mercury bath so either arm of the interferometer could quickly be aligned with the Earth's motion. No either fringe shifts were ever observed. (Beam spliter & mirrors etc. were mounted on thin marble disk slab the inertia of which also helps eliminate vibration induced fringe shifts.)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 30, 2009
  11. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    MacM, do you really expect me to be that you understand the countless prerequisites from physics (all of which way more complex than the rather basic relativity theory you struggle with applying) for even beginning to make sense of the article so well, and so completely, that you can dismiss it - without even a cursory look at the main text? And that with a glib
    Even assuming you had the prerequisite knowledge, and even with my very weak understanding of these concepts, I don't buy your explanation. Because the imaged effect isn't seen across the junction, but along the rings, orthogonal to the tunnel barrier. Of course, even failing that, you still haven't read the fucking article, which is a pretty good readon to not buy your explanation in the first place.

    So, tell me, MacM. Enlighten me. Since you're so grand that I "simply have no business challenging" you: What qualifications do you have that makes you qualified to dismiss this article out of hand? Have you studied, say, superconductivity in depth? (And by "studied" I mean, of course, at an institute of higher learning, somehow - not just by reading pop sci descriptions on the web...)

    I'll freely admit to understanding very, very little of the material in the article - but I still see right through you and your delusions of grandeur. Not even in the subfields of computer science where I consider myself an expert would I have the nerve to dismiss as false an article from a top grade journal on the basis of the abstract alone, without reading a line of the main text. It's so completely inconsistent with a scientific mindset, that I have trouble imaging the sheer hubris of it.

    But put your money where your mouth is, for once: Write that letter to PRL and/or the authors of the article with your objection (oh, and be sure to accuse them of fraud, as you did above - that always works to break the ice), and let us know the reply!
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    But they were not you cannot pretend the case on Pluto is a new common rest frame beccause you specifically sated "A" did not come to rest.

    The fact you picked a ridiculus veloicty for "A" is not a game changer. Yes it is "ALMOST" at rest but it was NOT.



    Sorry what is ridiculus is to pretend that making 1 cm/year a hypothetical rest frame doesn't actually do it. To argue aboutv such nonsense is just to argue about such none sense.

    The only thing ridiculus is your continued effort to make such stupid UNSUPPORTED assertions. I have not argued agains what SR claims I have argued agains the claims themselves and you have provided absolutely NO rebuttal or emperical evidence to falisify my view. You have failed to post emperical data to support any claim that reciprocity inherent in SR relative velocity view is a physical reality.

    Now who does that leave on top of the arguement? NOt necessarily right but has the stronger case - ME.

    The only thing silly here is your insistance tha 1cm/year is rest. It is not. Ignorable certainly but you asked a technical question and I gave you a "Qualified" answer by saying "Immeasureable" affect of the 1 cm/year velocity.

    What a bunch of babble.

    Not nearly as silly as what you have posted or the assertion of some that reciprocity is a physicl reality for the clocks.

    Corect and that is why SR is flawed. You speak with forked tongue. You claim "Relative Veloicty" is a cause of time dilation but you then consider who switched frames (hence has "Actual Veloicty" to do your prediciton when collecting emperical data. When you do that you are no longer computing mere relative veloicty but are using an absolute veloicty of one observer to the resting observer and you do not and cannot produce emperical data to show the reting clock was affect in any mannr.

    How silly of a theory is that?

    Now jsut so you understand I'm done with your ludricrus scenarios. Either address my scenario directly or just stop posting.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Total BS. The fact are that M&M and numerous simular experiments hence, some recent with better equipment) have ALL recorded dinural velocity affects.

    The problem is that all results yield data that is only a fraction of what would be expected for a static aether.

    Based on that the dinural data has been ignored and the false claim that M&M proved NO aether has persisted. All it (and other tests ) prove is that aether is not static but dynamic and they ALL show dinural velocity affects.

    Please keep your post honest and consistant with actual data and not consistant with BS dogma and rhetoric.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I really care less what you believe in that regard. I'm telling you that based on what is in the abstract their claim is totally unfounded.

    Interesting now you say the spatial contraction was orthogonal to the relative motion of the two vortices? That is completely inconsistant with SR in the first place. Contraction in SR is along the line of sight to relative motion.

    No I haven't read the fucking article as I said I can't but I wonder how an electronic technician (I'm giving you the benefit of doubt as to having some actual knowledge) that has had no engineering or formal training in relativity can come along and be so obnoxious and make comments like you do regarding a subject for which I at least have had some formal training and considerable engineering.

    You are unqualified to evaluate me or my claims. Being able to recite something you read or have been told does not demonstrate understanding.

    Yes. Have you studied nuclear engineering? Can you tell us all about Cerenkov Radiation - where particles travel FTL (faster than light) in a medium and generate photons?

    Perhaps you missed it but my background is formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics design. Now I am not a physicist nor an expert in relativity but I have had higher mathematics and studied "FormallY" some relativity and apparently much more than yourself.

    I repeat. Based soley on the abstract the claims of the article appear totally unjustified. A POV that you clearly are unqualified to make yourself. You are just taking their word for it and you like the idea that SR has once again been proven. And you wrongfully believe anybody that takes exception to aspects of SR doesn't know anything.

    Thank you for being honest as to your ability to evaluate the article but as to the rest. I have no delusions of grandeur. I simply pose questions to those that should know and await an answer. In (5) years one has not been given.

    But it really amazes me that you can post messages which imply you know the subject and that any that are in disagreement are therefore dillusional. I think it is time for you to take a step back from the brink.

    A scientific mindset and adherence to physics principles is what is required to really consider the ludricrus consequences of SR.

    It was 45 years ago when I had my formal training but I had strong interest and had done considerable reading starting in the early 50's - 59 years ago.

    So I have seen far to many things published that simply are not true with regard to having proven Einstein's work. To make that claim is to get your name in lights and to get published even if it is based on fraud or ignorance.

    H&K atomic clock test was just such a case.

    So you are a computer tech and yu had the gall to call upon the Mods to move this thread into the cesspool? WOW talk about dillusions of granduer.

    1 - I don't have their address.

    2 - If I did I would not do so until I did have the opportunity to read the entire paper and hence could make very specific comments.

    For the last itme I repeat "Based on the information in the abstract, it appears their claim is totally unjustified".
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2009
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    As you are having reading difficulties and did not understand* post 606 scenario, I summarize it for you in larger type:

    All motion is along one common X-axis and frames C, P, A & B are different and inertial . Both clocks were initially at rest in frame C; then blasted off for frame P, which is moving very fast wrt C. Then in:

    Case 1, clocks a & b both remain motionless on table fixed in P exactly where they landed for 100 years and then blast off, ending up in different inertial frames A & B. Thus, P is their last common rest frame, CRF.

    Case 2 The ONLY change is that clock b never come to exact rest on the table in P but slides 1m at 1cm/year for the 100 years. Thus for case 2, C is their last common rest frame, CRF.
    Note added by edit to make clear b was never in any other inertial frame after C except, the final one, B: That 1cm/year is the average speed. Initially it was 1.5 cm/yr and linearly decreasing (small constand de-accleration) to 0.5 cm / yr just as the 100 years was over. This kills MacM's suggestion that B was in some othe inertial frame.

    Problem is to compute the Time Dilation of clock b wrt to clock a, TDba, when millions of years later both are still in their final, permanent, only coasting states


    Standard SR computes this TDba, using the SAME never changing relative velocity Vba in both cases. I.e. TDba1 = TDba2 where the 1 & 2 refer to the two cases.

    MacM’s SR uses same SR formula, SR( ), twice in each case to get their separate TDs wrt that case's last CRFs and then subtracts, to get TDba. In case 1 the velocities inserted into SR( ) are wrt frame P giving result M’sTDba1; and in case 2 these velocities are wrt frame C not P. (b was always moving at 1cm/year in it) giving result M’s TDba2. With very different velocities inserted into the same SR ( ) formula, the final coasting state time dilations computed are different. I.e. unlike standard SR, your M’sTDba1 is not the same as your M’sTDba2. {No BS here – I am just following YOUR post 93 instructions.}

    Recall the ONLY difference was clock b slid one meter on a table fixed to the dirt in frame P a million years before their now permanent coasting conditions. Standard SR is not concerned with this ancient history but that tiny “table top difference” between case 1 & 2 in MacM’s SR change what was the last CRF and thus greatly changes the velocities used in the SR( ) equation so yields very different results for the Time Dilation of clock b wrt clock a in the two cases.

    ---------
    *For example:
    You called my post 606 "BS" but it ONLY follows your post 93 instructions.
    You said I stated clock "a" did not come to rest (in P). Not true, clock a ALWAYS came to rest in P as did clock b in case 1 only.
    I never used case 2’s clock b moving at 1cm/year a “hypothetical rest frame” but carefully said it was moving on the table that was at rest in frame P (It was of course at rest in some frame I never mentioned or used.)
    I never even mentioned "reciprocity" so admit I introduced no experimental evidence for it. Etc. etc.

    FOOTNOTE SUMMARY: Most of your reply post 609 is either based on misunderstanding of my post 606 or totally unrelated to it..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2009
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Exactly.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Sorry Billy T. Like I said I am not messing with your BS anymore. YOUr scenarios is fucked up. Your accusations are basless and you have not proven anything you cliam tro have proven.

    You will either respond to MY scenario and not your continued BS or I will ignore you. Now post something that contains emperical data that shows my view is falsified or back off.

    You repeated flip-flop aback to dogma, rhetoric and reciting SR is NOT a rebuttal. ONLY had data in conflict with my view is a rebuttal, so produce it or shut up.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Read again. His scenario does not prove anything. His BS about the one clock not actually coming to rest does not constitute a second common rest frame. And his assertion that to not honor it is being silly is being silly on his part.

    His whole series of posts do nothing but recite SR and claim therefor my view is false. That is NOT a proper rebuttal.

    I even went the extra mile and posted a more reasonable version of his scenario and asked he stipulate the accumulated times on the clocks he has ignored it. Just as he has ignored every scenario or analogy I have posted.

    He likes to post lengthy complex scenarios that are incomplete, irrelevant and then make claims he has proven things that he has not hoping others haven't actually followed his BS either.

    I have asked simple questions and posted clear analogies. Either respond to them with hard data showing my view is falsified or admit you do not have the answer.

    1 - How do you justify stipulating that a moving clock is time dilated (BTW: which is supported by emperical data) but when in the moving frame ignore the dilated tick rate and then claim that because the clock accumulated less time than the resting clock it must have traveled less distance?

    It is obvious on it's surface that the lesser accumulated time is accounted for by the dilated conditons of the clock. TRhe emperically support time dilation is a physical reality and not some frame dependant perception .

    2 - Given city "A" and city "B" are known to be 60 miles apart with strict and there are radar units at each mile marker set to take photos of vehicles exceeding above 60 Mph. Further two cars are going to go from "A" to "B". Bob is driving a vehicle in top knotch condition, his speed-o-meter works, his o-dometer works, his crusie conttrol works and his watch is keeping perfect time. Bill on the other hand is driving a clunker and his speed-o-meter doesn't work, his o-dometer does but his watch batteries are low and he doesn't know that his watch is only ticking 9 times to Bob's watch's 10 ticks. That is to say Bill's clock is time dilated.

    Since there are so many radar traps along the route Bill asks Bob to set the pace so they don't get a ticket. Bob sets his cruise control for 60 Mph and they drive side by side from "A" to "B".

    Upon arrival Bill looks at his watch and exclaims "Damn it Bob we went 60 Miles in only 54 minuter that is 66.666n Mph and enough to have gotten us a ticket, what is wrong with you?"

    Bob a bit confused says wait a minute we were going precisely 60 Mph and since we were side by side that must mean you on went 54 miles.!!!!!

    Now who's view is STUPID. The basic physics facts are this

    1- If time dilation is a physical reality (and it appears to be) then it is not a matter of perception by frame.

    2 - Keeping the dilated condition of the clock in the moving frame means the observer will merely "Compute" a different velocity, not travel lesser distance according to SR. You need to keep in mind that velocity is a computed value based on the ratio of two physical parameters v = ds/dt or change in distance per change in time.

    Time for Bob and Bill are different each has their own proper time standard and the travel time accumulated by their clocks fully account for the trip ONLY if distance remained the same for both.

    Now it is up to you to respond with facts and not BS, dogma, rhetoric or some recitation from SR. I do not care that what I say here is inconsistant with Einstein's view. I only care that it is supported by emperical data, which it appears to be .

    That being the case what you say about my view is nothing more than your opinion. Until you post hard emperical data that contridicts my view it stands equal.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2009
  19. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Good evening to all,
    on this 'energizer' thread.

    A few basics:
    1. Motion has always been a relative concept.
    2. I propose to eliminate 'rest' as a state of motion (a contradiction in terms), and redefine it as: when two objects have the same velocity (speed and direction).
    Assuming everything is in motion seems reasonable for a dynamic universe!

    Posted by MacM
    post ?
    Disagree.
    When one observer accelerates to move away from the 2nd, each will
    see the other's clock run slower than their own. Both observers
    are in motion initially, therefore we cannot determine if the
    acceleration decreased or increased his speed relative to a
    universal fixed frame. To compare the clocks for accumulated time,
    one observer must rejoin the other. The one that changes his
    velocity to rejoin the other will be the youngest, i.e. either one.

    post 604:
    Agree.
    Using the previous example, it's only the relative dilation that is measured.

    Agree.
    SR theory tell's you it's a mathematical transformation of 'coordinates' (not objects). The objects are moving with a constant speed, i.e. in a state of equilibrium (in space), and there are no forces acting on them.
    The formulation of the theory is to preserve the constant speed of
    light, and consistent descriptions by different observers of common events.
    example:
    Two cities are 100 miles apart. Flying at 100mph it takes 1 hr.
    Flying at 200 mph it takes .5 hr. Are the cities closer spatially
    on the 2nd trip, no, but they are closer in time. The question is,
    what are we measuring?

    Using a universal fixed frame with constant light speed, the example of the light clock, easily demonstrates time dilation as a function of speed, i.e. the relationship of the speed of an object (v) to the speed of light (c).
    Look at the gamma expression for time dilation and see for yourself.
    The difference in speed of two observers is used when measuring relative dilation. Because the dilation is a function of the speed of the observer/frame it is frame dependent. This effect is experimentally verifiable.

    My comment:
    Science currently does not accept that a rocket leaving the earth
    alters physical events in the distant universe (especially instantaneously). Why is it then that those who use 'length contraction' so matter of factly are also the first to defend the 1st postulate 'the rules of physics are the same in all inertial frames'?
     
  20. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,411
    The whole reason the Earth has a bulge is to accomodate an energy equipotential at every point on the surface, at least for the parts covered in water. Every part of the sea in the world has roughly the same energy due to Earth's gravity + spin, and in relativity that implies the same time dilation. It has nothing to do with the Earth creating some special "local frame" of its own, and couldn't do so because GR is mathematically constructed to work in any frame, including one where the satellite is at rest (or near rest) for a short period of time.

    I have a perfectly good working theory already, it has mounds of experimental evidence with more accumulating all the time, it makes astoundingly accurate predictions (especially when coupled with quantum mechanics), it's simple to write down and it's a perfectly self-consistent and hence logical theory. But wait, Mac thinks it's a nonsensical theory, so I should not only be skeptical of it, but I should spend large amounts of my time actively seeking out alternatives.

    That's like the Church telling some guy to go seek evidence of Jesus, and if they don't find it, they haven't looked hard enough. You're presented with abundant evidence verifying the predictions of Relativity, but without even reading through the articles, you dismiss them as quack nonsense from desperate physicists in danger of losing their careers (damn good thing I didn't waste my time going through data for you). Well guess what? Those experiments are said to confirm Relativity for a reason, it's because Relativity can predict these things, and the only way you can do the same is by plagiarizing whatever it predicts, but attributing these effects to untestable mystery causes.

    At this point I'm signing off permanently from this thread, because I'm satisfied with all the points myself and others have made and don't care to keep repeating myself when my words get drowned out. The biggest joke is how you came in telling us that Relativity is ridiculous and illusory, but you don't have even the beginnings of an alternative to offer in its place. Do let me know when you have this fully functional alternative finished and ready to present for our consideration.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2009
  21. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    *sigh* And I had promised myself not to get involved in this thread. Alright, last post:
    No, that's not what I said. The vortices are, of course, also moving along the ring.
    So, in other words, it's not inconsistent at all.

    Apparently, you didn't really understand what the article was about, did you? (And, interestingly, I didn't need to either in order establish that.) Which is why statements such as
    are completely delusional. You apparently do not have the expertise to dismiss the article based on the information in the abstract. Hell, you even missed the basic setup: the abstract (based on which you say their claim is "completely unjustified") writes that the junction is annular, and on top of that you got the movement of the vortices completely wrong! Even if you (by some miracle) do actually possess the necessary prerequisites to make any sort of evaluation of their claim, and are just a lazy reader, you seem to completely dismiss even the possibility of investigating it. That's not reasonable - it's just denial.

    For those reasons I continue to claim the article as proof that 1) Lorentz contraction has been observed, 2) you know about it, and that 3) you are a willfully ignorant crank to keep denying it.

    ---

    Moving on to CptBork's ever-so-reasonable stance: Completely orthogonal to the issue above is that even though you have training in "formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering", you seem completely unable to make any sort of coherent mathematical formulation of your own ideas, and most of your posting is bluster about "physical reality" and "illusions". (Which is, why except for a few stalwarts with more patience than could be reasonably expected, nobody gives your "ideas" the time of day.) Go away, and come back when you have a coherent (and consistent) mathematical framework to replace relativity theory. You are wasting everyone's time, here.

    I don't know to whom the Quixote analogy best applies: MacM for fighting again str, or us for fighting against him, but futile it is in either case. Goodday, gentlemen.
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Good MOrning and Welcome to SCF. Since this seems to have been your 3rd post I'm rather sure you have not had the opportunity to view many of the other threads particularily the older ones. I've been here (5) years.

    FYI: We generally or frequently qualify "Rest" as "Inertial Rest" meaning uniform motion. We don't always do so but itvis because we all know the meaning but your comment about rest is correct.




    Correct but take note about the term "See". This is what I refer to as "Illusion of Motion" and not "Physical Reality" because teh affect vanishes when the relative velocity terminates.

    1 - In physics deceleration is also acceleration in the - direction. That is if you are moving east and apply the brakes you are effectively accelerating west.

    2 - I do not advocate a universl fixed frame. That concept does not appear to work While I do not have a formalized view of it I'm inclicned to think there is a dynamic fabric to the universe such that every inertial veloicty is an absolute rest condition.

    That is you are only moving in relation to a universal perspective.

    This appears false.

    i.e. - The twins Bob and Bill are at home on earth and synchronize watches.

    To keep this short and simple assume Bob accelerates away in period short enough to not bother computing acceleration time in the scenario.

    Bob achieves 0.2c, goes inertial and continues to fly for 10 days.

    According to SR Bob is now only 9 days, 19 hours, 47 min, 49 sec old while Bill who stayed at home is 10 days old. Bob is 4 hours, 48 light minutes away from Bill.

    At that point Bill boards the new rocket express that tests the newest technology speed of light design and accelerates to 0.99999999999999c instantaly. Upon arriving at Bob's location he also instantly decelerates to join Bob in his frame.

    Since Bob was in motion while Bill was making the trip it takes Bill 5.99 hours to reach him by earth time standards.

    Therefore Bob is now 9 days, 20 hr, 57m, 46 s old.

    Bill travelled 1 hr, 9m and 57 s by earth clocks but at 0.999999999999c he virtually didn't age any measureable amount so he is still 10 days old.

    Good.

    I agree but take this fact further than most. It is my opinion therefe thatSR is virtually a mathematical construct without any solid physical underpinning. Time dilation is a physical dfact but not due to mere relative veloicty because having relative velocity if you have not accelerated is without a "Cause" for there to be an "Affect".


    Interesting you say this. If you use a universal fixed frame you have introduced a universal absolute reference?????

    I agree the entire SR fiasco is based on trying to justify light invariance but they could have done better to consider the consequences of that view and to have looked for alternative explanations for the apparent invariant data.

    I suggest a couple of things to consider. If you aren't aware of it there is a process, well understood, called Cerenkov Radiation. It is where particles traveling FTL (Faster Than Light) in a medium such as water, produces a blue-white glow of photons.

    If you consider that space to be some unknown medium (which I suggest it must be) then it follows that light may well be the result of something moving FTL through space.

    If the space medium is dynamic then it may also be that your inertial velocity which is your rest is the "0" compared to v = c velocity. And to change inertial velocity in this medium shifts both the rest and v = c reference.

    Hence moving in this medium causes each inertial observer to view different photons being generated at the v=c value rather than viewing the same photon with some mysterious invariant quality.

    I also note the v = c is the Lorentz dimensional collapse point of mass. Now while I reject spatial contraction as advocated I do believe in dimension of mass collapsing.

    Such that Cerenkov Radiation and standard light might be though of as a form of dimensional binding energy release. Just a thought.

    As to spatial contracton I suspect it exists but on a far smaller scale that is advocated currently. That is I see the ratio of E = mc^2 as applying to mass vs an energetic space medium. So SR's contraction is to great by a c^2 factor. That is my hunch.

    Further the idea that space is a dynamic energetic medium and that light generation is based on some quantum energy relationship to the observer opens the possibility that this spatial medium also accounts for the entangled particle affect.

    The only verified time dilation involves actual motion to a former rest frame and not between observer frames due to relative velocity.

    It would be nice to see them hold that the rules of physics are the same. i.e. - If a clock is time dilated (ticking slower than my clock) that they would when computing in the dilated frame they would retain the dilated condition of the clock. If they did the issue of spatial contraction vanishes.

    It makes complete sense that a slow tickign clock will accumulated less time for a trip and not mean he traveled less distance. - Shsssh.

    Nice to have you onboard. Enjoy.


    MacM
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Agreed and I in no way meant nor implied the earth was creating a special local frame. I was merely informing many that would think clocks at different latitudes would tick differently due to rotational velocity of the surface.

    It is simply fact that the oblate spheroid shape of the earth has GR affects be equal and opposite velocity affects at various latitude at sea level. That was all I was pointing out.

    Now as to the ECI being a preferred frame - IT IS. Man selected it, earth didn't creat it.

    Does it predict physial reciprocity?

    Does it claim that things suffer physical change all as a matter of observer perception as a cause or frame dependant affects?

    Does it stipulate a dilated physical condition of a clock (meaning ticking slower than another clock) but then in the dilated clock's frame ignore the dilated condition then predict some new physical affect like since it accumulated less time for a trip it must have gone less distance?

    If so then yes look for an alternative.

    Sorry but this is pathetic. You really should try to apply your conditions to your won theory. Piles of emperical evidence have been acknowledged. I have not asserted otherwise. But ALL that evidence only demonstrates LR is real not SR is real. That is the fact and issue at hand. Not that relativity is not real just that Einstein's relativity is not real.

    As to the bias in the media and to careers and funding. It takes a completely blind or indoctrinated person to not see what happens. I don't mind the BS thrown at me because my livelyhood doesn't depend on kissing ass of the in crowd but the real world is if you challenge relativity you are outside looking in. It doesn't matter how well educated you are, what your lifes experiences and achievments are if you attack Einstein you are finished in the scientific community.

    I have consistantly said I do not have an alternative. But that does not alter the facts I have presented against the status quo SR. It is a shame that you nd others having failed to properly support SR choose to hide behind LR accumulated data and claim credit for SR.

    All I have asked is that you acknowledge that "Relative Velocity" between clocks is not a cause for physical change. That all emperical data for change has been due to an accelerated frame to a former rest frame.

    That is the emperical fact now for over 100 years and you folks just stick your heads in the ssand and plug your ears.

    Sorry I cannot help you. But perhaps others not blinded and indoctrinated have learned a few things and will not be led around by the nose so easily.

    Stand up for your own free thoughts and common sense. Do not let manstream nerds intimidate you. Do what is right and go find the truth. Don't be a sheep or brown noser.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page