Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Right. No surprise here.

I would like to alter your case just slightly. We have points 'A' & 'B' and 'C' but there is a 'c' which is the same physical location as 'C'.

Now if you want to claim relativity and Car 1 reaches 'c' in 1 hour then Car 2 is just now at 'B' but must stop his clock because Car 1 has completed the trip to 'C' and his clock will also show just 1 hour when Car 1 arrived at 'c'

Hmmmmm. This is kindergarten physics for your benefit. We'll get to relativity later.

Ditto. Did you notice your scenario has no merit?

Yes see my clarifying text above. Still no time dilation.

Yes I see you duplicating my diagrams but failing to acknowledge the truth.
Your diagram (as well as mine) show that if you assert lorentz spatial contraction both clocks must tick in sync which you have already said is impossible.

Further since they tick in sync when the traveling clock reaches 'A' in 1 hour the resting clock must also register 1 hour and stop his clock.

You are still trying to talk in circles and ignore the physical realities. Your post does not alter anything. The only thing that works is for clocks to physically dilate if accelerated and distance to remain fixed.

Code:

Stationary twin space: A.......................B.......................A
Stationary twin time:  0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120
 
Travelling twin space: A.......................B.......................A 
Travelling twin time:.. 0......10......20......30......40......50......60

Thats right Kiddies nobody ever said anything about two different trips. This is James R's own fantasy. Just like his fantasy that clocks can't tick in sync between frames but then he turns around and claims in his scenario they do.

Got to watch James he is clever at switching things around when he needs to.

Precisely and lets not forget that clocks are ticking in sync and that as your diagram shows the traveler has arrived in 1 hour while the resting twin thinks he is still only half way there and the resting clock is still at 1 hour also.

So what is your explanation the traveling twin is behind some event horizon and invisible for an hour - LOL :bugeye:

The difference is most obvious. Unfortunately the first case has nothing to do with the issue raised and your second is not a resolution.

Now,James R. The question is: are you still going to act like a big baby about this, or give in an admit your kindergarten mistake?

A dilated clock matches prediction if there is NO spatial contraction. Spatial contraction applied to a trip proves clocks must tick in sync and no time dialtion can exist.


Hmmmmm. I wonder if it will ever sink into James R's thick skull.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

FYI: James R has earned the title and more. As far as my view I haven't seen you post any valid rebuttals.

Here is your opportunity. Show us your stuff wise guy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You've been shown excellent rebuttals from Billy and James and more besides. Clearly sane coherent logic has no effect on you and I've made no attempt to delve into the details of relativity here. You failed to respond to the point of my post, that you're enormously hypocritical for calling other people egotistical when you've said you've known mainstream theory is wrong for decades and now you're in retirement you're going to do us all a favour and pass down your knowledge from on high.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What is the bone of contention here. I'm just trying to understand why this thread hasn't reached a resolution.

It seems that time dilation occurs between two objects that experience different acceleration, and length contraction is experienced by an accelerated object relative to an unaccelerated or lesser accelerated object. These are physical differences caused by acceleration if I understand correctly. In addition it looks like anything with greater constant velocity relative to something else has experienced greater acceleration relative to a common rest frame and will display time dilation and length contraction when compared to the slower object.

MacM or any of the participants, from your view are these statements correct or not.

 

Your main error, misunderstanding is to think there is some "physical difference" or change caused by acceleration. It is easy to see* this is ridiculous:

Just consider the lengths and clock tick rates in frame A from two other Frames B and C. If a physical change occurred in frame A, then Frame A's meter sticks and clocks must have two different lenghts and tick rates at the same time!

I.e. The falsely postulated real physical contractions and time dilation in A cannot possibly have the two DIFFERENT values that do result when B and C use their clocks and meter sticks to DESCRIBE events in A.

There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE in A. - SR's strange effects are due ENTIRELY to DESCRIBING events in A with the units (seconds and meters) of some other frames. – Note that there are thousands of other frames.

If SR's effects were physical changes in A, then there must be thousands of different physical contractions for the same meter stick in A at the same time. - Clearly that is NONSENSE. !!!!!*

----------
*Except for MacM - He can not get this. For MacM, there is nothing wrong with the concept that the same clock is ticking at a thousand different rates. :bawl:

 

OK, so you are saying that the bone of contention is, "These are physical differences caused by acceleration".

I have to get this straight. Acceleration will cause a clock to tick slower and when the clocks are brought back to the same frame, the clock that was accelerated and ticked slower shows less time has past. I am going on the assumption that the difference in the reading on the clocks is a physical difference.

 

Rhetoric. Reciting the assertions of SR is not an independent physics response. Your comment assumes the traveling observer sees distance contracted.

And indeed he would not and could not.

More rhetoric based on preconcieved conclusions assuming SR dogama. Just where do you think you have any basis to claim :

He can't see time dilate but he sees distance contract? Where SR dogma and dogma only.

For those, including apparently you, that are slow learners I repeat:

If you travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the amount of accumulated time, based on the same speed, then THERE HAS BEEN AND CAN BE NO CLOCK TICK CHANGE OR TIME DILATION. Hence the resting clock and traveling clock are ticking in unison and hence when the traveling twin returns both clocks MUST read the same accumulated time.

No all I have assume (and rightfully so) is that to produce a physical result one must have a physical cause and any physical condition must exist in all frames. That is I reject ALL assertion of physical reality being subject to observer perception.

It is you that make theerro of just following the mathematics and claims ofSR without stopping to consider the physical consequences.

For those, including apparently you, that are slow learners I repeat:

If you travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the amount of accumulated time, based on the same speed, then THERE HAS BEEN AND CAN BE NO CLOCK TICK CHANGE OR TIME DILATION. Hence the resting clock and traveling clock are ticking in unison and hence when the traveling twin returns both clocks MUST read the same accumulated time.

Not so fast. You and I agree the traveling twin clock is going to read 1/2 the accumulated amount of time as the resting clock when he returns and they both are looking at the clock. This is not about perception during motion but that issue that he is younger upon return. So just how have I misrepresented the traveling clock? I haven't and you grasp at straws trying to confuse others since you are losing this discussion.

Try again loser. This is the final condition drawn graphically and does not show reciprocity during relative motion. You do not reach 1/2 accumulated time at the return unless you have accumulated 1/4 the amount of time half way there.

Nice try but no flip flop here. You aren't flip-flopping on your rhetoric but you are flip-flopping all over the floor just like a fish out of water because you cannot overturn the obvious truth of my post.

Another rhetoric, dogma, recital of SR theory reply. Meaningless. It does not meet requirements of basic physics. If spatial contraction were physically real ALL clock then tick in unison in ALL frames. You nor I agree that is correct.

More dogma. rhetoric and recital of SR theory. Where is you basic physics. You don't seem to care that to assume SR BS you must reject, not merely common sense, but obvious basic physics and ignore violations.

 

Billy T is a pathetic example to quote. James R at least has some meerit as seeming educated but unfortunately is far to indoctrinated to even think for himself.

As just shown he can do nothing but recite SR theory and not comment on real physics.

I have properly stated what I beleive and why.

YOU HAVE NOT POSTED ANY REBUTTAL. So why are you even posting? You clearly do not understand the error in their rebuttals.

Why not try explain yourself just how a clock is going to be dilated:

IF you travel 1/2 the diatance in 1/2 the accumualted time at the same speed?

Go ahead. Try to post something as a contribution either in favor of SR or not. Just make it a valid physics post. Or is it that you do not know any physics.?

 

I accept your statements. Keeping in mind that you have properly left out contraction of spatial distance.

It won't be resolved becasue relativists will not acknowledge any failure ofSR. If one eliminates spatial contraction then SR must be scrapped.

BVut time dilation does occur and is based on an actual velocity generated between an initial rest frame and terminal inertial velocity by acceleration.

But permanent time dilation does not occur as a result of mere relative velocity between frames clock.

 

No acceleration generates a change in absolute velocity. We cannot sense,, measure or identify an absolute reference frame and one may not exist. It may be that your every inertial frame is absolute rest.

But time dilation is a function of a change in energy caused by acceleration.
It is the difference in inertial velocity (energy level).

 

He will always see his own wrist watch tick normally, irrespective of his motion relative to anything else because he is at rest relative to himself. He will see other people's clocks tick at different rates if he's moving relative to them. If he's moving directly at an object he'll see the distance to the object as different than if he screeched to a stop, relative to the object, and looked at the distance again. No contradiction.

This is a 'No true scotsman'. You say 'real physics' as if there's some external, independent and non-arbitrary definition. Instead we're left to make our own reasonable definition and by any reasonable definition of physics Special relativity is real physics, as it's a logically structured model which makes testable predictions of both qualitative and quantitative natures and which has had those predictions tested and it's passed. If you don't call that physics then you are using a different meaning to anyone else and all you're doing it complaining that people don't use it in the same manner as you.

That doesn't prevent me pointing out your hypocrisy. I don't need to be a chef to know when a meal is badly cooked. You still haven't addressed my point, don't you think it's a little hypocritical you calling other people egotistical when you're claiming to be superior in mathematical physics than the last century of physicists yet you've got nothing to show for it?

There's no point, you are clearly utterly beyond any kind of logical argument.

I'm certain I know more physics than you. Of course you'll no doubt consider anyone with a formal education, working in anything related to relativity to be doing 'not real physics' but then we're back to the 'No true Scotsman' flawed argument.

Clocks are experimentally observed to measure different periods of time when in relative motion, with the quantitative amount being precisely that given by relativity. Now while its perhaps possible to argue that as yet untested predictions of relativity will turn out to be false, to say such things as "The prediction of relativity of different measured periods of time by relatively moving observed is utterly wrong and never occurs" is a denial of reality. Whether the underlying mechanism is anything close to what relativity says is indeed an open question but the quantitative results are not open to interpretation, dilated clock ticking is a fact of Nature.

 

That is part of it. MacM also disputes reciprocity, thinks there are preferred frames, speaks of "illusions of motion", absolute velocities, etc. - lots of his inventions and also has internal contradictions - see post 118 and 198, plus several others I do not remember the numbers of just now.

Yes if one clock (or the twin that made round trip) shows less lapsed time (and it does) or the returning twin is actually younger than his brother then that is a physical difference.

This can be explained as you have (almost correctly)* or better by noting that the total distance traveled was less for the traveler than the stay at home clock or twin describes the distance of that trip. I.e.
_____________________________________________ D (Total length of journey described by in the "resting" frame.)
vs.
__________________________ d (Total length of journey described by in the "traveling" frame.)

---------------------
* "Almost" because you appear to still be thinking that the traveling clock is in fact in its own frame ticking more slowly - as if the pendulum of a grandfather clock grew longer or the atomic energy levels of a cesium clock were no longer correctly given by quantum theory**, but more closely spaced together. Again: There is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE. If there were a "bad clock" which actually ran too slowly in the rest frame - exactly by the time dilation factor - and its ticks were accumulated, then your POV would be OK. It is better to realize that the start and turn-around points are fixed in the resting frame a distance D apart. For the travel this disatnce is in a different frame than his and thus contracted to only d < D. Both agree the two frames are separting (or later converging) at speed S. And in their own frames, cesium clocks defined the same duration seconds. Thus the time of round trip in the rest frame T = D/S and in the traveler's frame the accumulator will record the trip as t = d/S.

**Strange one whose ID here at sciforums is "Quantum_Wave" would be willing to accept that even quantum theory must change with speed. Pehaps you do not know how atomic clocks work? - They count # cycles of radiation from an atom to advance a second. The frequency (or period of each cycle) is a function of energy difference between the upper and lower atomic states of the atom giving rise to the radiantion (conservation of energy) - That is set by quantum theory. Only way there could be a physical change with speed in the duration of the second (# of cycles) is if the quantum theory changes with speed. If that were true quantum theory would be totally useless - not able to calculate anything correctly - yet in some case its predictions agree with experiments to 10 or more significant figures!

 

Yes, every object has its own rest frame relative to all other objects in motion relative to it.

I can understand what you are saying because acceleration of an object relative to any or all other objects adds energy to the accelerated frame. Then time dilation is relative to the added energy; I can see that. But like you say, there is no absolute reference frame. So relative to other frames, there is a physical difference as indicated by the different reading on the clocks that are brought to the same frame.

Are you saying that even though the clocks have different readings when brought to the same frame, and the difference is physical when finally viewed in the same frame, but ....

What is the But ...?

 

This appears to be another change in MacM's POV. Previous on several occasions, MacM has stated that spatial contraction is real, physical, etc. but that the SR formulae for computing it is wrong. MacM's POV has been that contraction is over estimated by that SR formulae.

 

I see and let me restate what you quoted me saying. I had said, "I have to get this straight. Acceleration will cause a clock to tick slower and when the clocks are brought back to the same frame, the clock that was accelerated and ticked slower shows less time has past. I am going on the assumption that the difference in the reading on the clocks is a physical difference."

And to restate it,"I have to get this straight. Acceleration will cause a clock to tick slower relative to the rest clock if the accelerated clock is observed from the rest frame and when the clocks are brought back to the same frame, the clock that was accelerated and ticked slower as observed from the rest frame shows less time has past. I am going on the assumption that the difference in the reading on the clocks is a physical difference.

 

That is basically correct, or at least not terribly wrong (My comments in post 1093 footnote about "almost" still apply.)

One thing MacM is correct about: The acceleration is not the cause of the strange SR effects. The relative velocity between the two frames is. For example, the clock in the moving frame many have been constructed long after the acceleration was over, and it will still tick more slowly if compared to the tick rate of the rest frame.

There are basically only two SR problems to talk about. The simplest one has two frames forever in relative motion. In this case, it is possible for either the "start accumulating time" instants to be simultaneous or the "stop accumulating time" instants to be simultaneous, BUT NOT BOTH.

The twin paradox is the other case. At least one frame must have acceleration so that it can return to the starting point. Then both the "start accumulating time" instants and the "stop accumulating time" instants can be simultaneous as they take palce in the same frame, but the effects that are caused by the relative velocity are not "undone" by the return trip.

PS I always try to avoid using word's "observed from the other frame" or "seen," or even "measured" etc. as if you do, someone like MacM will start talking about the time required for light to travel, etc. Perhaps even drag out fact that you see a distant explosion before you hear the bang (as if that proved something about SR effects, for example that they really were "simultaneous") etc.

I.e. I tend to say "DESCRIBED" IN TERMS OF THE UNITS OF THE OTHER FRAME. Thus no human need ever to have looked - There could be zillions of video cameras at every possible location in the rest frame making records of the events in the other frame ADJACENT to them as it passed.

 

Yes, I see that because even though acceleration is over, the frames have a different velocity and so nothing has canceled the SR affect until the frames are brought together.

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. "Described in terms of the units of the other frame" eliminates the "analogy" of saying "as if viewed from the rest frame". Analogies alway contain some flaw

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Just as I have always insisted. Except her is only at rest to himself while inertial. You failed to mention that.

Correct. But "Sees" is the operative word here. That perception does not translate into actual time dilation upon subsequent comparison in a common frame. The isssue with James R is he likes to claim reciprocity is physically real. It is not it is an illusion of motion only not actual time dilaton.

That is dogma, rhetoric and nothing but reciting SR theory. There is absolutely NO empirical data to support that assertion and my diagrams show that if that were physically real then tiem dilaton could not occur. Since time dilation is empirically supported that means spatial contraction is falsified.

I'll note that you again used the term "See" so I doubt the fact but as long as you do not assert it is physical I'd not waste time debunking it. But it can be debunked. I've done it.

But it has never tested reciprocity. Further it has never tested mere relative velocity for time dilation. All testing and datra involves a one way motion compatred to a rest frame and never the assertion that from the moving frame the opposite is true.

There is no evidence or data supporting spatial contraction.

SR in that respect has not been tested and appears untestable. If untestable then SR is falsified as being valid theory. Scientific standards required a theory be testable.

I really fail to see where asserting that:

Going 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at the same speed means the clock tick rate did not change is using anything but sound physics.

If you disagree with that then it is incumbent upon you to show just how you claim the clock changed.

No hypocrisy in pointing out the basic flaw of a theory. the fact that you don't like that is irrelevant. You must post a valid rebuttal of the facts I have posted and stop trying to mitigate my post with personal negative innuendo.

Nor do you know if the cook was having a bad day and spit in your food.

Further by your response implies you do NOT have a physics background. I do. The fact you choose to believe James R or Billy T is your unqualified personal choice but we must consider what you say in light of your qualifications or lack thereof.

Not sure where you get that I claim to be superior. I have called James R egotistical because he has been. I have never claimed to be a skilled mathematician.

I haven't seen you rebutt my point regarding 1/2 distance and 1/2 time meaning the clock tick rate didn't change. Until you do my point satands superior to SR - PERIOD.

That does not make ME superior to anyone but it makes me right and them wrong on this issue.

I really don't care to argue this point but if you insist I'll be glad to put my education and experience against your anytime.

Only when the clock that "Switched Frames" (accelerated) is considered. NEVER the SR asserted view that from the accelerated frame the resting clock now has velocity and ticks slower. That has never been observed or have empirical data to support.

No contest on this view except; that it is clear and proveable that mere relative velocity does not cause time dilation.

Particles accelerated equally around rings in opposite directions both dilate equally to the lab clock but not to each other even when having relative velocity.

Like wise if you take three clock A,B & C at common rest with A & B equal distance from C but in opposite directions and have them accelerate toward C under identical conditions i.e. reach 0.6c to C for an hour according to C and have them transmit a digital signal about the time they accumulated during their trip.

A & B will both claim the trip took only 48 minutes. There will be NO time dilation between them even though according to SR they had relative velocity to each other of about 0.8824c.

Also it matters not if they were at rest together at the same side of C and did the same acceleration such that they were co-moving and had no relative velocity to each other the time dilation results are the same.

RELATIVE VELOCITY DOES NOT CAUSES TIME DILATION. Acceleration to another frAme other thaN the initial rest frame does. That is more Lorentz Relativity than Special Relativity.

 

The only But I see is at the start of the sentence. NOt sure if you have a real question here.