Mac's Final Relativity Thread

You are getting senile. I have used the digital arguement many times in the past. You were unaable then as you are now to defeat that approach.

Now you have done it again you are showing your ignorance by assuming either you are smarter or that I am dumb. Both of which are baseless egotistical views on your part.

1 - Do not post BS rebuttals which you have failed to fully think through. I established a universal grid. It therefore establishes a point of absolute rest universally. You can say but maybe the universe is moving. go ahead nobody cares.

2 - It doesn't matter if you broadcast accumulated time and grid location using the absolute rest view or the moving transmitter view because unlike you erroneous knee jerk response where you want to claim distance changed hence you get different results is BS.

It does not matter if the universe is normal static distance or a forshortened distance to the length of a football field the grid is proportionally contracted such that both views yield the same result.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I could go to the trouble of doing your work for you and doing the calculations showing that everybody in the universe would know their absolute velocity and hence could compute their own dilation and make comparative analysis to deterimne others as well.

But I'll leave that to you to see if you really have the mathematical whomp you claim to have or if after having thought about this for two seonds if you still want to pursue this losing arguement.

We have had this discussion before and you couldn't win then and won't win now.

Yes they are (appear to be dilated in the earth frame. But I must remind you and tell others not aware of it that a test was done which used muon ansitrophy to earth to compute our solar system motion in the universe and it produced the same general result as other methods such as CMB ansitrophy.

What that means for those not familiar with it and according to the conclusions of the test is:

The muon time dilation was more properly linked to an absolute motion than relative velocity to earth!!!!!!

You of course rejecteed the study (without due indepth consideration) as crap and phoo-phood it.

Whenever they came into existance. That frame according to the above study is the absolute rest frame.

Same answer given before: They are by-products of particles that had motion due to acceleration at some point in history. Their inertial veloicty is defacto proof of some historical acceleration in their existance or creation.

ABSOLUTELY. I've been trying to teach you that for years. Anything PHYSICAL is indeed physical in all frames.

Nope. Just measure muon ansitrophy or CMB ansitrophy and you will find they both suggest there is an absolute rest frame.

This has nothing to do with inaccuracy it has to do with if time dilation is a physical reality.

If clock tick rate is dilated in the radar frame then the radar will compute a higher speed.

If SR is correct and that physical condition is observer dependant (a stupid concept) and the clock is not dilated but distance is contrating then guess what v = ds/dt. The contracting distance produces faster change in distance and with a fixed time produces a higher speed calculation. - Hmmmmm.

Hardly. You must have fell asleep in my first class here showing that equally accelerated clocks remain in synch and are equally dilated. That is the earth and the radar don't care about any universal motion. The radar results is based on only the respective dilation between frames being measured.

I.e. - Assume earth (and hence the radar) are only ticking at 0.5 the rate a clock would tick if truely at absolute rest.

Now 0.5 is the standard from which any acceleration and hence velocity induced between the radar and it's target is based.

i.e. - The radar cop car velocity has its clock ticking at 0.499999 and earth is still 0.5 such that the radar computes 0.000001 as your speed not 0.50000001.

Keep trying you are talking nonsense because yu have no real rebuttal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

NO. NO. NO. As I have said you can have "Illusion of Motion" but that is not the physical reality. You are STILL trying to interject affects of measurement during relative motion. That is not and has never been at issue.

The issue is the proper tick rate and respective dilation of "A" & "B" to themselves as a mater of their accelerations and relative velocity or lack thereof and what I am showing is that relative velocity between them is not the cause of time dilaton between them but their respectrive dilation is a function of their respective accelerations to new velocities.

Yes.

Yes

When you say "in frame D" you imply as "Seen" from or "Percieved" by which implies as measured while in motion. And in that case NO. But that is not the physical reality.

This becomes clear if you rearrange your scenario (but not the accelerations)

"A" is located, and at rest, a fixed number of miles east of "C".

"B" &"D" are located, and at rest, an equal fixed number of miles west of "C".

Both "A" and "B" courses have start line markers part way toward and equal distance from "C".

"C" transmits a test light signal toward "A" and "B" which are received simultaneously (this is nothing more than the standard clock synch signal used by relatvisits so don't start with the "But in "A's" view or but in "B's" view BS. Those views have no bearing on the physical reality.

When received "A", "B" and "D" all launch toward "C" with equal acceleration and hence all cross their respective start lines simultaneously and with equal velocity.

At that time they all become inertial and transmit toward "C" a light "test start confirmation" signal.

Upon receipt of those signals by "C" and since "C" knows the distance to the start lines and the speed of light computes the signal delay from "A" and "B" and pre-sets it's clcok to that amount of time based on it's proper tick rate.

At this juncture all equally accelerated clocks are inertial and remain inertial throughout the test as they pass the resting clock "C".

As they all pass "C" simultaneously they transmit digtal information to each other as to their accumulated times.

My question:

What times do they transmit?. Since inadequate information was specified to produce a specific value assume that according to "C" it accumulated 1,000 seconds and "A" accumulated 800 seconds.

Signal transmitted:

C = 1,000
A = 800
B = ?
D = ?

Answer your own question by answering mine above.

Now your question is what do they each think was the tick rate hence accumulated time by others. That is entirely a different question and is not at issue. The most important point however is to understand that what they thought while observing in relative motion is not supported by physical emperical data. Hmmmm.

Where have I heard that before.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MacM, Here is an easy to follow experiment using my previous analogy: You'll need identical boxes with threaded shafts running threw each one. On the threaded shaft is a marker that slides from one end of the box to the other end in a known amount of time (rotations of the shaft). Each box is accompanied by its own camera set to record the motion of the marker using the same frame rate (30fps). Next we put the boxes into different frames of motion. Add as many boxes in as many frames of motion as you like. Seeing as each camera would be acting as the clock, any physical change in a second would alter the frame rate. When we bring all the tapes together and play them side by side in the same room, we will find that every tape agrees on how long it took the marker to move across the box. This shows unequivocally that a second (30fps) is always a second (30fps) no matter the observers frame if motion. Now lets run this experiment again. This time their will be an identical box floating in space acting as a common observed point. It's important that all of the observers film the "onboard" boxes in the same line of sight as the commonly observed box. This time when we play the tapes back, once again all of the onboard markers agree on how long it takes to move across the box however, none of the tapes will agree on how long it took the commomly observed marker to move across its box. We know everyone was observing the common box at 30fps, the onboard boxes prove this. So, in my mind, the explanation that "relative motion between observers gives rise to the observation of time dilation" is a reasonable one. I will leave you with this final example. If I record both my onboard box and your box (in the same line of sight) and you do the same with one of us being in motion. When we play the film back, your tape would show that my marker moved differently than your onboard marker as would my tape yet both tapes would show that both of our onboard markers moved across the box in unison.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Rather than wade through all this I draw your attention to my replys to James R. If you think there is a flaw in those responses point it out but there is no need to keep writting new and more complex scenarios.

Either the simple scenario I have posted is valid and your arguements are falsified of they are false. Writting new scenarios doesn't alter things if either view has been falsified by my posts.

 

Please use your torch to severe the ropes you have bound me with -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree. But this is in the realm of what I have dubbed "Illusion of Motion" and is not at issue. The issue is does it physically change the amount of time it takes to cross the box if there is relative motion to the box.

The answer is NO. The time it takes is the same but it may appear changed. This is nothing more than watching the replay of a world breaking mile runner in slow motion and then challenging the record because as you watched the replaay it took him longer than claimed by official ast the race.

 

In post 59 I was NOT writing out a new scenario, only trying to remove ambiguities in YOUR scenario and introduce some symbols, like Va for the velocity of clock A, etc. For example, I wanted to be sure your digital receiver, which I called “C,” was at rest with respect to your “absolute space grid.” However, it no longer matters as you have introduced a new scenario in post 62 now with A,B,C & D: (You state: “This becomes clear if you rearrange your scenario ….”)

To answer your questions:
C=1000, A=B=D=800. This is as SR predicts, namely C observed equal time dilations of the three (A, B, & D) as they are all moving wrt C at the same constant speed after beginning to accumulate clock ticks (assuming I understand your new scenario).

I hate the use of “observe” “see” etc. and even “measure” in these discussions unless one does as you did. I.e. describe in detail the procedure used to measure, but I will say “observe” to make a request.
I think that A, B, & D would also “observe” C’s clock ticked 80% as fast as their’s did, but I believe you had frame C at absolute rest as you think that time dilation is caused ONLY by motion wrt the absolute rest frame, not by relative motions. If this is your POV, please confirm it. Also are you saying we can even determine the absolute velocity of an object by measuring it wrt to the frame in which the CMB has the least asymmetry?

 

It is inherent that anything at rest to the grid is at absolute rest universally.

Which is why putting the universe on a grid clarifys what is really going on. James R wanted to assert that the scenario was wrong because I didn't consider Lorentz Contraction.

The scenario shows that Lorentz Contraction doesn't change the absolute distance. Hence clock accumulated time is what a moving observer would calculate velocity from. Less time for same mile markers crossed = >V.

 

Actually you are still hung up on what is the "Perception" from a given frame while in motion.

I've copied this and will offline restructure to show what will be supported physically.

FYI: I missed this initially but you screwed up #2. D is going -0.6, A launches to + 0.6 and then reverses 0.6 or once again is at original rest. That leave A&D with 0.6 relative veloicty. You state it is zero.

What you didn't like the grid I put down on the universe? He He. Your objection merely assumes Lorentz Contraction and a common tick rate between frames. The old SR switch-a-roo of time standards. But if you compute velocity by mile markers across the universe and accumulated time you find that time is dilated and distance does not contract.

 

That only partially answers my questions. It barely does that as I must assume that you think this grid could exist, at least as a mathematical coordinate system and all motions wrt to the grid would be "absolute velocities."

I am still not sure of your POV about whether or not one can determine this absolute grid and thus determine "absolute velocities" or if that is just some hypothetical POV you like to take. I.e. as I asked before, is the frame with the least asymmetry in the CMB the "absolute rest" frame?

You made not even the slightest attempt to answer the other part of my question: Is the "correct" velocity for computing the time dilation the "absolute velocity"? (and not the relative velocity)?

E.g. if clock A has v= 3 and B has v = 2 both wrt the grid, can one calculate (as SR permits) B's measure of A's time as dilated as due to their relative velocity of 1 or must, in your POV, one calculate the time dilation of both A & B separately using their grid velocities of 3 & 2 to get their "true physical" time dilations and then B measures A's time dilation (if he correctly measures it with his "2 unit dilated" clocks) as the difference bewteen "3 unit dialted" clocks and his "2 unit dialted" clocks?

As this SR calculation is nonlinear, these two methods do not give the same result.

It is very hard to be sure exactly what you state, at least for me. That is why I hope you will clearly answer my two qestions. Again they were:

(1) Is there an absolute reference frame? If yes, is it the one in which the CMB has the least asymmetry (or something with very small unknown velocity wrt that "least asymmetry" frame)?

(2) Is the real "physical time dialtion" of a clock a function of only its absolute speed (wrt to the grid)? or can one use the relative velocity (of clock A wrt to clock B) to compute how much B would measure the time dialtion of clock A moving wrt to B?

 

Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

This one deserves a post of its own.

Let's go back to the three clock example. I'll give you two versions.

Version 1

Clocks A, B and C start at rest relative to one another and synchronised. A and B are then launched in opposite directions and accelerate until the speed of A is 0.6c and the speed of B is 0.6c in the opposite direction, in the frame of C.

Version 2

This scenario is exactly the same as Version 1, but we view everything from point D, which is initially moving at 0.6 c relative to C in the direction of A's final motion. In other words, in D's frame, the final speeds of the clocks are:

A: zero
C: 0.6 c.
B: 0.88c, in the same direction as C. (Here I used the SR velocity addition formula)

Now, notice that Version 1 is exactly equivalent to the very first scenario you talked about in this thread. You claimed that A and B would be synchronised IN ALL FRAMES, and that their tick rates would be the same in frame C.

In Version 2, which still has A and B starting from your favorite "local common rest frame" (C), I now want to know if A and B will still be ticking at the same rate in the frame of D. It is my understanding of your claims that you believe that A and B must still be synchronised in frame D, since synchronisation in one frame means synchronisation in all frames. Is that correct?

---

In both of these scenarios, here are the speeds of clocks A, B and C in the frame of D:

A: zero
C: 0.6 c.
B: 0.88c, in the same direction as C. (Here I used the SR velocity addition formula)

Now, my questions. After all the accelerations are finished and the clocks are moving at their final velocities:

1. In version 3, do clocks A and B tick at the same rate as each other in the frame of C?[/quote]

If A & D are east of C and B is west of C equal distance and they accelerate the same magnitude and duration then go inertial signaling C as they do, when they go past C and transmit their respective accumulated time they will all have 8 ticks per 10 ticks according to C. That means they were ticking at the same rates physically in spite if the relative velocity between (A or D) and B.

D cries foul since he clearly saw B running slower but when emperical data of accumulated trip time is shared D using SR prediction based on their relative velocity Why do you not understand "Illusion of MOtion" is NOT physical reality. B & D cross path at C and share accumulated time it is the same so they were ticking the same not dilated to each other due to relative velocity.

As in my other scenarios A,B,C & D must be arranged so that they will all cross past D simultaneously if you want to predict accurately emperical accumulated time without confusion . In that case it is impossible to say what accumulated time is because not enough information has been specified. However "Yes" in frame C they "Appear" to tick in synch; however if you provide adequate information to compute respective accumulated times those predictions will not be upheld. That is what "Appears" tro be respective tick rates does not reslut in the actual accumlated time. i.e. "A & B think each is ticking slower but according to C they aren't. These are the "Illusions of Motion" and not actual tick rates. The only actual tick rates justified are those supported by emperical data which will be based on D. Di is the only initial rest frame that has unchanged.

No.

#3 = C
#4 = D

I know of no test ever done to determine respective tick rates of multiple frames. All data is between your frame and another. Not between two other frames. All tick rates are going to be relative to your frame but as shown those tick rates do not equate to the physical reality they are "Illusions of Motion". You have no information regarding accumulated time (no synchronizaton to your clock) and hence tick rate is "Illusion of Motion" until tested by having synchronization and precise emperical data.

Nope.

 

i suggest this be moved out of the cesspool
show some fucking class
it stinks down here

 

It is no more hypothetical than claiming distance between you and remote objects contract due to relative veocity.

It is of course just a tool to demonstrate the reality. I'm not avocating the CMB as a reference frame. Others do and it may well be but as you know it iw not static it is dynamic (which I like BTW I don't envision a static absolute reference).

I would think so. What we have is useable if you recognize that you are doing nothing more than measuring changes from some absolute tick rate to start with.

Just as GPS computes orbit to the ECI frame and not the surface. And the surface to the ECI (not used but hypothetically) will yield correct answers, computing from orbit to surface differential velocities using SR doesn't work.

Each must be computed to a common inertial rest reference (not necessarily some universal absolute rest) and not between themselves if both have moved from the common rest frame.

False, you have no way of knowing any magnitude between our frame of measure and that of absolute rest. Further testing is to an inertial rest frame which is the local absolute rest. That is the concept is that rest is the absence of differential energy.

So there may be some absolute zero energy frame but that doesn't mean using local equal energy rest frames is any different. All rest frames are the same.

Possibly. But that has nothing to do with relativity. It is the equal energy state be it absolute rest of inertial rest that is the basis for relavisitc affect.

No absolute rest is just another frame where there is no energy but that is no different than an inertial rest where there is no differential energy.

Relative veloicty between A and B establishes both "Apparent" tick rates as percieved by both observers and actual tick rate where time is accumulating relative to their common inertial rest frame.

It is time accumulated in the common rest frame that is physical reality. That is why reciprocity is false and never has and never will be demonstrated.

The only time time dilation is correct between two clock frames is when one frame has not accelerated (which covers every know test done in 100 years) and you eliminate the reciprocity inherent in a relative veloicty view by considering who switched frames (accelerated).

 

BTW: Just wanted to let others know. I received an e-mail today from the author. There is a new theory coming out dealing with relativity, gravity, nucleonics, etc., and UniKEF Gravity is being cited in it. Imagine that James R.

He is a graduate from Ohio State and a student of Professor K.N. Rao. So this isn't just another crank from the street. That doesn't mean he is correct but if he likes UniKEF he can't be all bad -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*********************** Extract from Q&A session with author about the theory *********************

Q. What is gravity?
This is not an exact answer, just insight from an SOM point-of-view.

There are three interrelated items:

(1) Gravity is an unbalance due to the fact that electrons are more free to move than protons

(2) There is an (equivalent) unbalance between positive and negative charge Δe = |e+ - e-| = 1.5154 10-42 coulombs, obtained by equating G mp2 = 9 109Δ2

(3) Since mass is the sum over all angles of 'rays' coming from Eqn (1), then gravity could be the 'scattering' of part of the rays by one body before they get to the other body, and vice versa. Dan McCoin's UNIKEF theory does approximately this.
************************************************************************************

Look for it it is entitled "Spin Only Model" or SOM Theory.

 

It is contrary to forum policy to debate the merits of any theory as far as I can tell. It should at least be in pseudo science.

 

Hello Quantum Quack,

Been a while. The reason it is here is they (likely James R ) thinks my ideas do stink - LOL.

Shame he dodged the grid scenario I posted.

 

Thanks for your replies, but I am still not following / understanding you.

In (1) I asked: “Is there an absolute reference frame?"
You replied: “Possibly. But that has nothing to do with relativity. It is the equal energy state be it absolute rest of {or ?} inertial rest that is the basis for relativistic affect.”

So I clearly understand that the absolute velocities, even if they did exist, are not important in relativity questions. Good as I do not think they exist.

I think you are asserting that the frame in which one must measure the velocities is an inertial frame (again good as SR can’t use accelerated frames). But the part about “equal energy state” seem to be unintelligible nonsense, even if we imagine that there are only two objects. Clearly nonsense if there are several different objects with different speeds. Even with only two objects of different mass, it seems to be nonsense as the frame you speak of with “equal energy state” of the two object varies with the mass of either even if both always have the same speed relative to one constant frame. Surely you do not really meant to say that a heavy clock, H, and a lighter clock, L, traveling with the same speed in opposite direction away from a point C cannot use their velocity wrt to C to compute their “real physical time dilations” as the frame in which C is at rest is not their “equal energy state” frame but I will test this speculation of mine in the example at end of this post. (Perhaps the only difference between Clocks H & L is the the lead base plate of L fell off.)

You also state: “It is time accumulated in the common rest frame that is physical reality.” & “… time dilation {the SR calculation of it, I am almost sure you mean as the "physically real" time dilation must be correct.} is correct between two clock frames is {only} when one frame has not accelerated”

Taken together, this leads me to believe that you are saying that the SR calculation of time dilation is correct only if the speed of the moving clock is measured wrt the frame it was once stationary in, which you call the “common rest frame” and when there are several clocks, it is necessary that all were once at rest in some common frame for the SR computation to give valid results. Surely we both believe that a “physics reality” time dilation exists whether or not we know how to calculate it. –That is another question.

If that is what you are saying, it seems very strange as it seems to state that the time dilation of a clock on Mars* can never be computed by anyone on Earth using Earth’s clocks to measure time as Mars and Earth do not have a “common rest frame.” I say strange as I know your are quite expert in the details of how the GPS clock’s time is dilated and corrections made for it. Clock on GPS satellite and on Mars appear to me to be closely related problems. You are very difficult to understand, and appear to be self contradicting, but perhaps I do not understand what is the “common rest frame.”

So lets start simple with the definition of the “common rest frame” as that seems to be the key to understanding your POV. Please explain it to me so I will have some idea what you are speaking of. Here is a specific example, that I think will stress you so you are careful in defining it even in the only two object case:

Relative to an inertial (not accelerated) point P, a 2kg clock is now traveling away from P at 0.9C and a 1kg clock travels away in the opposite direction now also with 0.9C. The 2kg clock was once at rest wrt to P, but the 1 kg clock was never at rest wrt P. (Perhaps it was made by aliens in another solar system.) I do not think the fact that one clock has twice the mass of the other is important but you spoke of the “equal energy state” so I specified different mass to see what that was all about.

---------------
*Assume that "clock on Mars" was made on Mars or left there by aliens from a another solar system many years ago. I.e. it was never at rest on Earth.

 

Oh, absolute rest must logically exist. But it is not the reference for all motion. Any inertial condition is an absolute rest reference from which to measure.

Not just an inertial frame but the same inertial frame. That is if A & B are at inertial rest and B stays at rest then you can use relative velocity between clocks to find the dilation of A the accelerated clock. But that relative velocity is actually to the initial inertial rest frame in which B the resting clock still resides.

If B should move during the relative motion of A to the common rest frame then accumulated time between the clocks must be calculated seperately.

While A & B both have relative velocity to the common rest frame their relative velocity to each other cannot be used to predict time dilation between them.

IF both are moving relative to the initial inertial rest frame then time dilation of each each must be computed and the difference then becomes the dilation between them.

For example A, B, & C., where time and distance are from C's frame.

A is east of C by 1 Lhr+ an acceleration distance and B is west of C by 0.5 Lhr + an acceleration distance.

C sends a light signal to A to tell him when to launch. Having computed the test velocities and distances C sends a signal to B to tell him to launch and those signals are sent so that A & B at different velocities will pass C simultaneously.

As A crosses the 1 Lhr line he goes inertial and sends a light confirmation signal to C and set his clock to zero. When C gets the signal he starts clock Ca to the known time the confirmation sifnal took to arrive i.e. 1 hr.

As B crosses the 0.5 Lhr line he does the same and C upon receipt of the confirmation signal sets his clock Cb to 0.5 hr.

Assuming A goes inertial at 0.2c he takes 5 hours to reach C by C's clock but he accumulates only 4.898979486 hours (4 Hours 53 minutes and 56.326 seconds).

Assuming B goes inertial at 0.1c then he also takes 5 hours to reach C but he accumulates 4.974937186 hours (4 hours 58 minutes and 29.774 seconds).

1 - The actual physical dilation is that A is dilated to B by 0.0759577 hours or 4 minutes 33.4477 seconds.

2 - The relative velocity between A & B for the 5 hour trip was 0.3c and according to the mere relative velocity between clocks view each should have been (5 hours - 4.769696 hours) or 13 minutes 49.09 seconds.

#1 is correct #2 is not.

Not sure why you have trouble with this. If each is at rest with the common inertial condition their relative energy = 0. If you have motion then there exists relative energy. It is the energy differentail to the inertial rest frame that determines dilation.

This is irrelevant. Every clock at any velocity to the common inertial rest frame has different energy relative to it. But object of any velocity is not relavistically linked in dilation to other moving objects or their frames but to a common rest frame.

If there is no common rest frame then there is no valid SR prediction of physical tick rates.

No you rightfully point out the term energy suggests kinetic which includes mass. This is more like internal energy due to having accelerated.

This sounds correct.

Correct. Now if we know the difference in the inertial rest frames you can extrapolate if you know the vectors, etc. but you cannot directly compute between such frames but must go thorugh their respective rest fames to get the final dilation between them (See above example).

Not true. You must first establish or locate a common preferred absolute frame. i.e - simular to the GPS ECI frame. In other words perhaps call it the SCI or Sun Center Inertial frame. Both Earth and Mars now (generally speaking) have motion around a common absolute rest frame ( the SCI cannot be seen to have motion by either Mars or Earth).

Each can now be computed relative to the SCI and the differential is the actual physical time dilation that can be predicted and measured.

Did the above clarify?