Mac's Final Relativity Thread

You opened the door. After all you have been impolite with me for years. You have, as I have pointed out, flip-flopped on issues and clearly did not know jack about GPS until I enlightened you. But then you had to go side with Ashby. But see that bit you in the ass because it was a different position than you held before.

Nice try James R but I have posted the links. ALL can see the entire context and you sir are a flip-flopper and liar.

LOOK AT HIM WAFFEL - WHAT A RIOT. Not on your best day James R. You are all over the map. Has anybody ever seen such bullshit CYA before. Not me.

What a joke. Here for contrast are your positions:

1 - Orbit is constant acceleration and hence is non-inertial.

2 - Orbit is NOT in acceleration and IS inertial.

Just how are these out of context?

Seems a whole lot like Billy T's "Nothing physically changes.................in their own frame" BS dodge and double talk.

3 - -5.8us/day is correct for surface velocity?

How is that out of context?. As far as I know I am the ONLY person in the world to derive the incorrect figure of -5.8us/day and post it as being incorrect. Further surface speed is not used - PERIOD.

4 - SR is Not used in GPS and you never said it was vs SRT & GRT are both very important in GPS.

How is that out of context?.

You don't hover over the horizon of a Black Hole unless you are in orbit. But I'll wait and see if Zanket chooses to clarify his post. I won't do what you do and re-interprete others meanings.

No cigar for this one. Acceleration is either inertial or non-inertial.

How is that out of context?

So you think you can have it both ways. You can argue it is inertial or non-inertial at your choice depending on who you want to attack. Nice position. To bad it is bad physics. Or at least according to you incorrect physics. That is why Einstein solved all the problems. He corrected Newtonian physics - Right?

Oh but yes I do understand. I understand you like to flip-flop and take positions that are 180 degrees out depending on whatever your opposition has said. You think you can flip-flop between old and new concepts and argue both ways. That doesn't cut it.

Orbit is either inertial or it is non-inertial.

You just never read my post or at least you at best skim quickly and then post irrelevant BS. Of course I have challeneged both you and Billy T to demonstrate, as I have, using a diagram just how the twin paradox is resolved by SRT.

Not on your worst day bubba, I said I'll let Zanket clarify his post. If he says he didn't mean orbit then I'll conceed I mis-read his post.

However, that does not explain your reply where you insist that both frames are non-inertial. Or how a rocket can be trailing a rope and not in motion.

You have stuck your foot in my mouth for the last time. From now on you will be treated just how you treat others.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As stated in my "thanks for 1013" post, I can not do the tensor math of GR, so I almost always use Newtonian model (exception being a space/time diagram or discussion of light losing energy or "bending" to go straight by gravity field).

I also noted that unlike coriolis and other pseudo forces, gravity force does have the Newtonian "Equal & Opposite" reaction force, so does not need any "qualification" in this Newtonian POV.

But I do have a question about orbits around a mass in the GR POV being or not being inertial. You state:

and I have no problem with that for a point, but wonder if we are speaking of an extended object.

I use as my definition of "inertial" the concept that inside a sealed chamber it is not possible to determine if you are moving or not wrt some other inertial frame or specifically the "fixed stars." I do not use to be "at rest" or in "free fall" as they seem both non-operational definitions and somewhat circular as defining "rest" and "free fall" without evoking at least indirectly the concept of "inertial" does not seem possible to me. Defining "inertial" for a point as "force free" is OK, but limited. I want a definition that can be applied to a volume (with ALL points of the volume being considered to be in one frame - not as collection of many different force-free inertial point frames).

With my above definition (Motion not detectable inside sealed room) one can tell if they are in orbit about a mass. The easiest way is observe a gyroscope over a period of time. An instanteous way is carefully observe the surface of water (or mercury*) in a bucket to see if it is plane or not.

James R: Would you comment on these points? Including telling how you defined "inertial."
--------------
*Using Hg surface as a mirror is a practical way to notice non planar surface.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Speaking of complaining about being impolite.

Not hardly. You can huff, puff, waffel, weave, do the Texas Two Step but your are stuck with the facts and they are posted for all to see with confirming links to the full post context.

Sure. But unfortunately for you the issue is not that you described Newtonian and General Relativity views in that post but that your position on GPS orbit being in acceleration and non-inertial elsewhere vs your post here saying orbit is not accelerating and is inertial.

You can't duck this one so easy.

You wish but it won't go away. You have been caught switching views more than once and this is one of them.

You can try and make light but I'm re-posting here what you said because it is absolutely laughable:

WOW what a load of outright crap. Shear nonsense. You really were desperate. Come on folks have a deep belly laugh at James R's expense. He has just proven he can never admit being wrong. He has completely distorted relativity to some new level where GR is really based on SR relative velocity??????

This is not about your defining the difference between 1 & 2 but about your different claim regarding orbit being an accelerating frame and non-inertial elsewhere vs not accelerating and inertial here.

GET IT?

Oh yes you would like to just sweep this under the rug but I won't let you. It is not minutiae that you have claimed many times to have known all about GPS and to have corrected me.

But the truth is I have rightfully claimed you knew nothing about GPS until I crammed some things down your throat. You did go read N. Ashby, etc and changed your opinion about the use of SR in GPS (unfortunately siding with Ashby because he is a relativits but who is flat wrong in his assertions )

The fact remains you said point blank that -5.8us/day was a correct figure for surface velocity in GPS. It is not it was a number I produced to show SR mathematics FAILED in GPS.

I'm the only person in the world that has produced that number (as far as I know) and did so to show how wrong it was and you attacked me claiming I didn't understand that it was a correct calculation.

What a joke. You knew jack crap about GPS and you have repeatedly lied to others since about how I was wrong and you corrected me.

NEVER HAPPENED.

Sorry again. You can't just blow off your prior posts. It was you that first said SR is not used in GPS. It was you that later said SRT & GRT were both used in GPS. A clear flip-flop.

It was you that said orbit was an accelerating frame and was non-inertial.
It was you that changed your argument and now say that orbit is not an accelerating frame and is inertial. Another clear flip-flop.

Speaking of taking things out of context.

1 - When you search you get the post and don't read the complete thread, hence can easily get a wrong impression about what is being said.

2 - This has already been addressed in that my impression was that he was having objects orbit. But that if not I would let him clarify his post. So this is not at issue and your childish "News Flash" is just that childish.

News Flash! James R Flip-Flops and fabricates distortions and diversions to virtually everything you post if he disagrees with you.

Right.

1 - I have NOT mis-represented your view. I posted YOUR comments on the subject. They speak for themselves. You have flip-flopped on several issues.

2 - This post while clever is not clever enough. You have not addressed the issue (as usual) which is, is orbit an accelerating frame and is it inertial?.

You last position above was that it is not accelerating and is inertial. But that is NOT what you have said before. No amount of double talk and half truth as you tried to post here changes that.

AND? What does that have to do with James R's habit of flip-flopping and lying?

More self-serving false babble.

Nice try but I don't flip-flop. You have. This is about you not me. You cannot divert it now it is over for you.

If you recall I have always contended that orbit was inertial because it is a free-fall condition.

Nice try James but no cigar. When discussing time dilation and/or length contraction we are not discussing Newtonian physics are we?

Good. Lets hope you don't flip-flop once again.

NEWS FLASH! Jame R acts childish again. This was covered above. I can't speak for Zanket but just reading the limited portion that I saw it makes no sense to assert that something is in free-fall at a Black Hole and that a rocket is flying with a rope trailing and is hovering around the event horizon. The logical conclusion was that these items were in orbit free-fall.

But I have already stated if that were not his intent then I would conceed that point.

HOWEVER, ALL must keep in mind that in other posts you also said orbit was an accelerating frame and non-inertial. While in others you said orbit is not accelerating and is inertial.

So dropping this one post from the list does not alter the conclusions one iota. You flip-flop and lie.

 

For all relativists to keep in mind. Learn from Einstein:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html

1 - As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

2 - Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Especially James R.

 

No. Not at all. You said what you posted and it is not so flexiable.

You said:

Paraphrasing, the conclusions of GR should be interpreted to include some equivelent SR relative velocity affects.

That is outright bullshit.

You now do another flip-flop. First saying SR is not used. Then to SRT and GRT are used . Now "SR is not directly used".

I said in the beginning that SR is not used and you lambasted me saying I didn't know what I was tallking about and posted links to N. Ashby, et al. Relativists that publish BS about how GPS proves Einstein and that SR andGR are both required.

Now you are flipping once again. Are you now disagreeing with N. Ashby?

Make a clear statement is SR used or not? I'm not asking if the lorentz formula for 1/gamma is used but is SR used?

Lets see which side of the egg turns up this time. Or are we going to get scrambled eggs again.

Nice try but you can't divert your flip-flops into being my misunderstanding of your posts. People can read. You said SR is not used. You said SR is used. You now say SR is not ued directly. You can't make up your mind what you believe.

1013 you discussed the different views of Newton and GR but that is not the issue. In that post you also said that the GR view wqas correct and that orbit was not an accelerating frame and it is an inertial frame.

The flip flop is "accelerating" and "inertial" not that you defined two different theories but that you flipped on the specific issues pointed out now several times. Stop trying to diflect the truth . It won't go away. Just fess up.

I can't attack your position since you don't seem to have one.

You have the outright gall to deny you have flip-flopped. It is in clear black and white posted by you.

SR is not used. SR is used. Now SR is not directly used. Orbit (rotating frames) is under constant acceleration and non-inertial. Orbit is not accelerating and is an inertial frame.

FYI: You aren't even a skilled liar which means you are a slow learner since you have had SO much practice.

You would do better to just fess up and say you are sorry that you mis-spoke based on ignorance but have now done some reading and have an opinion.

More self-serving false BS. I have never contested GR. I contest SR. That is not to agree that GR is in fact 100% valid. I rather have my doubts but I have not addressed it.

I'll repeat "When we are discussing time dilation and/or length contraction we are not discussing Newtonian physics. Granted Newtonian and SR physics are both in flat space-time but that does not mean we are discussing Newtonian physics or did I miss the class on Newton's time dilation, etc?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More effort to wiggle through what must be uncomfortable for you since most here fear the great James R and won't put you in your place.

But I won't let you slide through with such diversionary tactics.

Half truths, irrelevant truths, outright fabrications, distortions and lies, etc. What a tool bag.

Stop wasting our time with this personal dribble and post your SR diagram showing how the twin paradox is resolved.

You and Billy T have have several pages now to respond but don't seem to know what to do. So you don't have to go hunting:

************************************************** **
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.

************************************************** *
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours. Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.


.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches empirical data.

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

CASE 2:

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B.......................... ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3........... ..4

Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours. But must also read
4 hours when the traveling twin returns.

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

CASE 3:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both clocks ticking in synch.
Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.

..........................................Resting Twin.............................................. ...................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...............B.................................. ...................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8
.....................................................................!
...................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A..........................B............... ...........A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4
Distance ......................240 Miles......................!

If the speed and clock tick rates are the same then all clocks must agree when I return and
stop my clock at 4 hours. Therefore the assertion that the resting observer has you travel
480 miles and take 8 hours is not possible since I return in 4 hours.

Further if clocks do not stay in synch and the traveling clock has dilated such that the
resting observer accumulates 8 hours when you return then you have case #1 and
distance cannot change.

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

SUMMARY:
The only case that fits empirical data and is physically possible is #1 for clocks to dilate and
distance to remain the same. Seems MacM has heard this view before and it proves Billy T's
view physically impossible.

 

To James R:

Let me give example of my post 1023 concern with you post 1013 comments:

Imagine sealed room with high shelf on the wall exactly parallel to the floor with a marble on the floor and on that shelf.

If that room is an inertial frame (by my post 1023 definition) both marbles can remain stationary (even in a gravity field if the “sealed room” is falling towards its mass source, until the room hits the source); However, if in orbit around the mass source, at least one of the marbles will be rolling.

Typically the one on the floor will be advancing towards the wall of the room and its motion will be in the plane of the orbit. (Its orbital period is less than the one on the shelf.)

Even in GR terms, why is this small room to be considered an “inertial frame”? I can inside my sealed room detect not only that it has acceleration, but determine the plane of the orbit it is in and which wall is the "forward" side of the orbit.

SUMMARY: GR's oribiting "inertail frame" is not a frame at all, but only a point. Thus GPS satellite is not in an inertial frame - Neither by Newtonian nor GR physics. Should I count this as your error No.5?

 

Just a brief note for others and that is by Einstein's own words an inertial condition is only possible where there is no gravity - WHICH EXCLUDES EVERY CUBIC INCH OF THE UNIVERSE - but that it (SRT) may be applied if the gravity is sufficiently minor as to be ignored.

In orbit free-fall the tidal forces are minor and can be ignored; hence assumed to be inertial. If Billy T wants to reject orbit as being inertial then he must also reject any inertial claim for SRT.

 

Just a brief note for others and that is by Einstein's own words an inertail conditon is only possible where there is no gravity - WHICH EXCLUDES EVERY CUBIC INCH OF THE UNIVERSE - but that it (SRT) may be applied if the gravity is sufficiently minor as to be ignored.

In orbit free-fall the tidal forces are minor and can be ignored; hence assumed to be inertial. If Billy T wants to reject orbit as being inertial then he must also reject any inertial claim for SRT.

BTW: BILLY T WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR DIAGRAM OF THE TWIN PARADOX SHOWING EITHER LENGTH CONTRCTION AND/OR TIME DILATION RESOLUTION.

 

I have described it several times and not too long ago went back and gave you the one of the post numbers with the description.

Here is a scale drawing of half the distance between Earth (or sun) and Alhpa Centari for the stay at home twin:

______________________________________________________________x

Here (with same scale) is half way to Alpha Centari for the traveling twin:

_________________________________________x

In their own frames, their cesium clocks (and all other good clocks) tick at the same rate. Also both twins agree that on the speed the two brother are first separating and later after turning around at "x" converging on each other. Both agree the traveler went half way to Alpha Centari. (Traveler twin even took a high resoultion photo at "x" showing sun and A.Centari, diameters were in proportion to their true diameters. -I.e. he documented that he was equally distant from both at the turn around point "x".)

The traveling twin accumulated less time when traveling the total distance to Alpha Centari (twice half is the whole) as he had to travel less distance. Had less heart beats, etc. Returned younger.

What is so hard to understand about this? Expecially for someone who claims that contraction is real for the one who had acceleration?

If you can not understand, you must be very dense.

 

Not so.

This double talk suggests either #2 or #3 of my diagrams where clocks tick the same and distance foreshortens.

Which BTW fails to meet the requirement for SR if defacto they tick in synch. Your sly "in their own frames" is mush mouth talk for I can't say directly they are dilated relative to each other because if one is ticking slower than the other then that would violate my "Nothing physically changes in either frame".

If you can not understand, you must be very dense

I don't think so because he reached alpha centari and picked their aging grandmother and brought her back. Why would you say he went half way.

That is a distortion of the problem.

He went all the way but it is claimed it was only half as far. BTW: Your 1/2 line is more 2/3 line. You need to work on your graphing skills also. I put some numbers on and a 1/2 mark to assist you.

1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234
_______________________________/________________________________x

Here (with same scale) is half way to Alpha Centari for the traveling twin:

_______________________________/__________x

If you can not understand, you must be very dense

What a joke. You have him go half way and turn around. Now I know you are dense. That is NOT what SR claims.

Show it graphically. I did. What you can't. Not surprised. It doesn't happen it is nonsense. By the way the twins are identical and their hearts beat at the same rate so the resting twin has had the same number of heart beats and is still the same age UNLESS clock time dilation occurs in the traveling twin 's frame. If clocks dilate (as it is shown they physically must) then distance cannot physically change.

If you can not understand, you must be very dense.

?????? I claim no such thing. I claim ONLY clock time dilation is physically real and length contraction (according to SR) is not real but I have also said mass contracts in the accelerated observer's frame taking less volume in space but space does not contract according to SR.

Sorry Billy T,

If you can not understand, you must be very dense

Your post based on two lines one shorter than the other but not nearly 1/2 as stated, and this double talk doesn't cut it.

If you can not understand, you must be very dense

Either pick one of my diagrams 1-3 as being representative of your version of SR or state what is wrong with my diagrams and post your own. Your diagram must show distance and time lines for each twin just as mine do.

Come on we are waiting. We really want to see your version.

 

Then go back to post 837, part of it as follows:

Note even back at post 837, I was getting tired of explaining the twin paradox. I am now very tired ot trying to beat the truth thru your thick skull.
I certainly am not going to try to follow your complex drawings when only the two lines of post 1031 show the point.

BTW I said in both post 1031 and 837 that the traveling twin went half way to Alpha Centari, (where distance to sun and Alpha Centari are equal,and both agree on that too.) I did NOT say that his trip was half as long as the stay at home brother's distance to the mid way point. (that would depend upon the speed of the trip, which i did not specify in post 1031.) You can not even read now it seems as you state my graphing skill are lacking, you invent traveler picking up grand mother at Alpha Centari, etc. I said none of that in any post. All your inventions.

To answer the blue text question: I pick the half way to Alpha Centari point so there would be no arguments about where the trunaround was. - I.e. both agree the half way point (sun same distance away as Alpha Centari) is where the turn around point was even though they disagree on how far that point is from the sun.

 

Well I found #837. But much to my surprise (not really) it is irrelevant to my diagrams and isn't even addressed to me.

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

What a lot of double talk crap. Simply does not meet the requirement for SR. If the clocks tick in synch then they read the same amount of accumulated time at the end of my trip which means the resting clock does not reach the larger number because it must stop upon my return.

Therefore it is clear that the traveling clock is physically dilated so as to accumulate less time for the trip which means spatial length contraction is a fraud.

You are good at calling names and making high sounding judgments about others but fail to realize your babble is totally invalid and does not meet the standard to define SR empirical data.

Now speaking of thick skulls and ignorance: If the traveling clock is NOT physically dilated compared to the resting clock then they tick in synch and each accumulates time at an equal rate and upon return (when ever that is) of the traveling twin then both clocks must read the same.

GET IT NOW Dumb ass?. We are tired of trying to get you to admit where your view is wrong.

Now post a legitimate diagram of your view or acknowledge you cannot not.

If you can't graph it make a clear statement regarding clock time dilation and tick rates.

I know what the answer must be but I'm trying to get you to admit it.

QUESTION:

Clocks that tick at the same rate "in their own frames" are actually physically ticking at different rates to each other while there is relative motion.

Yes/No? - NO ESSAYS JUST YES OR NO.
*********************************************************

 

You really need to learn how to read. I have stated at least a dozen times in several different threads that it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR CLOCKS IN TWO DIFFERENT FRAMES TO TICK IN SYNCH.

This is the standard SR POV. If you are going to postulate differently (that they can tick in sychronization in different frames) then don't pretend that is SR . That is MacM SR nonsense.

 

Thank you.

Now that you have dropped that double talk about "in their own frames" we can address the rest of the issue.

1 - Justify your assertion "Nothing changes physically". Just how does a clock ticking slower between frames not be physically ticking slower?.

Of course it could merely appear to be ticking slower which is what happens in reciprocity (the illusion of motion) but then that does not produce the end physical result of having accumulated less time does it.

2 - Finally reaching the point where an accelerated clock physically ticks slower than the resting clock - justify your claim that distance contracts. It is not possible that the empirical data we have to be generated if both clock tick rate dilates and length (spatial distance) contracts.

I'm afraid the nonsense is yours. MacM has never contended clocks in different frames tick at the same rate. So it is not MacM SR nonsense it is Einstein SR (actually James R and Billy T's SR) that is nonsense.

Einstein correctly qualified SR when he stated that two observers with relative velocity would "See" each other time dilated.

He never once claimed both would be physically equally dilated to each other. That is yours and James R's ridiculus extrapolation. It is the mis-interpretation by others of what Einstein claimed that produced the Twin Paradox.

Now that we have made a bit of progress. Post your diagram or admit the concept is false.

Here is what happens if both were true physically:


CASE 4:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both a clock ticks dilated & distance foreshortens. Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.

..........................................Resting Twin.............................................. ...................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...............B............................. ..... ...................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8
........................................................................!
..................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A..........................B..........................A
Time...... 0...........0.5..........1...........1.5...........2
Distance ......................240 Miles......................!

The ONLY diagram that is correct and matches empirical data is this one:

************************************************** *
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times are in hours. Traveling clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.


.............................................................Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches empirical data.

Now address these facts.

 

I have not dropped or changed a thing. You just have serious comprehension problem. All the clocks within a frame can be sychronized to tick in sync. Furthermore the good clocks in ALL FRAMES all define the same length second, be that by grandfather clocks with same length pendulum in same gravity field of more generally by counting # of cycles of the radiation from cesium atoms to advance one second. Physics is the same in all inertial frames. Cesium energy levels are the same (and given by quantum theory - and of course THEORY does not change.) There is NO change within ANY frame. All of SR strange effects are due to ACCURATELY describing events in one frame with the clocks and meter stick of an other frame.

Again: The clocks in frame A can never tick in synch with the clocks in frame B. That is if the tick interval between ticks of clocks in A is DESCRIBED BY COMPARISON TO THE TICK INTERVAL OF CLOCKS IN B, THEY DO NOT AGREE.

As there is little point in telling you the same thing many times more, I do not bother to read remainder of your post. It is useless to reply to it - you can not comprehend (or even read correctly) my replies.

 

Of course you did. You dropped the irrelevant term "in their frame" because that has never been at issue as has been made abundantly clear many times.

I comprehend perfectly well. It is you that do not comprehend that you do not get physical results without physical causes.

WOW. Amazing discovery - LOL.

I have never contested the "Physics is the same in all frames". I have pointed out that to be physically dilated between frames that things have to change between frames. That is the frequency of trhe atomic clock is not the same frequency in both frames - EXCEPT mathematically in their frame.

That is tick for tock is NOT synchronized between frames but the slow ticking atom is being timed by an equally slow ticking clock such tht the calculated frequency in that frame becomes the same but the tick rate between frames is NOTthe same.

Good because that is what I have said all along and have tried to get you to say but you always wanted to fudge and cloud the issue with your "....same in their frame" BS.

Well I see you still cannot comply with the request to justify your view using a diagram. I think that has been made clear now. So move on with your tail between your legs. Pretending to blow off my post is just cover for the fact you CANNOT comply with the requirement to post a diagram of your view.

No need to go back over your rhetoric it is clearly bogus.