Mac's Final Relativity Thread

PLEASE

FOLKS BILLY T KNOWS DAMN WELL THIS IS NOT A CHANGE IN MACM'S VIEW. I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID SPATIAL CONTRACTION ACCORDING TO SR IS INVALID. MASS CONTRACT ACCORDING TO LORENTZ BUT SPACE MAY CONTRACT TO ONLY 1E-17TH THE AMOUNT PREDICTED BY SR.

Billy T's continued posting of this is just an outright known lie by him. Disregard anything Billly T says be cause he chooses to lie repeatedly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Careful. It is not acceleration perse' but the veloicty induced by acceleration. The duration of veloicty difference determines time dilation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If my statement that every object has it own lonely rest frame resolved our difference then there really was no But ...

So to state my understanding, my statement is:

"Yes, every object has its own rest frame relative to all other objects that are 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. There is no absolute reference frame. So relative to other frames, there is a physical difference that is indicated by the different reading on the clocks that are brought to the same frame."

So MacM, from your view I am correct to say that the clocks have different readings when brought to the same frame, and the difference is physical when finally viewed in the same frame?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again I have to test my understanding of what you are telling me.

Relative velocity even without further acceleration causes continued time dilation and so the accumulated time dilation gets greater and greater due to the different rates in the clock ticks caused by the initial but discontinued acceleration.

I think that is what Billy T is saying too. He is saying that the SR affect is due to a difference in velocity. It has to be understood that there had to be relative acceleration from a common rest frame to cause a difference in current velocity.

 

A person will see their wrist watch count normally irrespective of their motion, non-inertial or otherwise.

Observers in relative motion see one anothers clock tick at different rates. When they move into the same frame they will find they have measured different periods of time. Precisely who measured what and by how much depends on the specifics of their worldlines.

Time dilation is a somewhat cumulative process, you can put something into relative motion, bring it to rest and you'll have a measure of the difference in time passing. Measuring length changes is more difficult because it can only be done, in the case of inertial motion, by using straight paths and getting anything up to a significant fraction the speed of light in a straight line and then doing an experiment on it requires very very large bits of equipment. Even at 10% the speed of light you're out of the atmosphere and into space in a fraction of a second if you move in a straight line.

I am not an experimentalist but I'd wager that such things as beam length contraction is seen in such places as CERN when doing collisions. I'll ask someone tomorrow. But your claim 'no empirical evidence' is not something I'd accept. The fact you haven't found any doesn't mean there isn't any and even if there isn't, that's different to being falsified.

So the plethora of experiments where SR is tested you ignore? We can't drill to the centre of the Earth to check its made of Nickel and Iron, doesn't mean we throw out geology. We can't test the Standard Model at the Planck scale, doesn't mean we throw it out. There are plenty of regimes in which particular bits of mainstream science can't be tested due to cost, difficultly, lack of technology or being impractical. So we do what we can and in that regard, SR is a resounding success.

Your hypocrisy is in calling other people egotistical.

You say that as if noone understands SR and just blindly accepts it. Do you think this is generally the case?

Degree in pure and applied mathematics, followed by a 4th year Certificate of Advanced Study of Mathematics, Trinity College, Cambridge. Currently in 3rd year of theoretical physics PhD, researching non-geometric vacua of string theory. Published. Courses taught to undergrads includes 'relativity and motion' and 'quantum mechanics'.

Is this your whining? Yes, there are pairings of worldlines which will experience the same proper time, despite having relative motion. Relativity doesn't say otherwise. Neither of the people in your example are inertial, if you consider a third observer who is then they'll be dilated by the same amount relative to that person.

By the looks of it you have not actually done any relativity and instead have badly pieced together a number of results from different thought experiments and found them to be conflicting. The usual twin thought experiment is a very very simple particular case of a much more complicated set of results. If everyone is moving non-inertially or involves accelerations which are perhaps less 'nice' than instantaneous changes then you cannot expect to make use of the simplified results of less convoluted situations.

Given two worldlines \(x^{\mu}(\lambda)\) and \(y^{\mu}(\lambda)\) for \(\lambda \in [\lambda_{0},\lambda_{1}]\) with \(x^{\mu}(\lambda_{0})=y^{\mu}(\lambda_{0})\) relativity doesn't say that it's impossible for the following condition to be satisfied : \(x^{\mu}(\lambda_{1})=y^{\mu}(\lambda_{1})\) with \(|\dot{x}^{\mu}(\lambda)-\dot{y}^{\mu}(\lambda)|>0\). In your case you just use reflectional symmetry. It's true for any spherical symmetry case, where you obtain \(y^{\mu}\) by an O(n) transformation on \(x^{\mu}\) which leaves \(x^{\mu}(\lambda_{1})\) unchanged (can you tell me the name of this subgroup? Or is that question over your head?).

 

Correct. But it is important to remember that emperical data only supports time dilation between a clock and it's initial inertial rest frame and not between two clocks with motion relative to that frame.

SR predicts that both observers "See" the other dilated; which is OK as long as you understand that is NOT true time dilation because that affect vanishes when relative velocity ends.

The only true time dilation is in the clock vs it's rest frame. Two clocks in motion to such common frame must take the differential in their respective time dilations to the rest frame to get a correct result between themselves and not compute time dilation based on their relative velocity to each other.

This is the bone of contention between myself and all the relativists here on site. They want to insist the "See" in SR means physical reality and that is not supported by data nor is it physically possible since that results in what is called reciproicty and was the reason for the introduction of the Twin Paradox.

The twin Paradox solution eliminates reciprocity (the view that the accelerated frame is at rest and the resting frame now has velocity and is dilated by considering who "Switched Frames" (which is a clever way of hiding the truth which is to switch frames one must accelerate).

The problem with the views by many relativists is that they (James R's view) that perception is physical reality and hence the resting frame then is supposed to dilated even though it has had no physical cause to do so.

 

Correct. However, be careful of Billy T he insists that space contracts and time dilates all as a matter of observer perceptioin and that nothing physical ever changes.

Hard to imagine that one gets a physical result without a physical cause.

He also over qualifies his comments. i.e - He will say ALL good clocks tick the same.....(and then adds)....in their own frame". But then will say clocks cannot tick in sync between frames. That frequency of an atom doesn't change in different frames.

Completely ignoring that for frequency to remain the same in their respective frames that the tick rate must dilate to the clock tick rate otherwise it would not appear to remain the same.

In other words he will try to dazzel and confuse you rather than give a correct physics answer.

 

So unless you bring them to the same frame and see what the clocks read and know they had a commom initial frame, we cannot know that the time dilation observed during relative motion is true.

You are saying that it is possible for the clocks to tick at different rates as described in terms of the units of the other frame, and still come back to a common rest frame without showing time dilation? In other words, in order to measure time dilation accurately you have to be measuing based on an initial common rest frame and assume that the velocity of the objects was accelerated to their current but different velocities from a common frame. Otherwise you don't know if the different tick rate noticed involved measurable and comparable acceleration differences from that initial frame.

yes, I can see that.

 

I have a simple question for you MacM:

Initially frame A clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.8C and frame B clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.4C. Then both accelerate (change their velocity) to be traveling in the + X direction at 0.6C. (All speeds wrt frame C)

In which frame is the time dilation real and in which is it only an “illusion of perception” ??? (I am asking about the initial conditions - not when they are in the same frame -then we all agree there is not time dilation between them.)

Would answer be the same if:

Initially frame A clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.7C and frame B clocks are traveling in the + X direction at 0.3C. Then both accelerate (change their velocity) to be traveling in the + X direction at 0.5C. (All speeds wrt frame D)

 

It would only be perception until you bring the objects to a common frame and compare the clocks. They could be perceived to be ticking at different rates because of different acceleration profiles, and yet the net acceleration profiles could be the same, causing there to be no permanent time dilation. That would be a rare case assuming you are observing objects in relative motion without knowledge of their initial frames. But since there is no absolute frame, you would always have to be calculating the common rest frame from the results of your observations during relative motion and the results of the readings on the clocks when finally brought to the same frame.

No, you can't mean that. Let's see what he says about my last response to his response to me :shrug:.

 

the physically real result is that the returned clock is showing less time than the one that made no round trip.

Perhaps hard for you, but most fouth graders know that d/S < D/S when d < D and it is, as discussed many times.

 

Correct and I have never said otherwise and what does this response have to do with my satatement that he is only at rest if inertial?.

Correct. What they see during relative motion may but most likely will not be supported by data in the final analysis. Predictions of time accumulation while in motion will only be correct if one was at rest and remainded at rest.

And then it will only be correct for the resting observer not the traveling observer. The traveling observer's view that the resting clock is dilated will not be supported.

Yes even contraction of a rod would be difficult to measure but it is important to recall that once motion has stopped there is no change in length so it is very much simular to the reciprocity predicted by SR for time dilation which also does not occur in the resting frame.

But the real isssue I raise is that of spatil contraction that is a change in distance. As I have posted here many times now that is proven to be a false concept.

If you go 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at the same speed then your clock must have remained ticking at the original rate and hence the resting clock and traveling clock remain in sync and when the twin returns the resting clock must have accumulated the same amount of time as the traveling clock; hence no time dilation would have occured.

Since time dilation does occur then spatial contraction is proven false.

I will wait to see those claims of spatial contraction. Again there is a difference. I too accept contraction of mass or rods but not space.

Not at all. They are for the most part valid. There are a few that have been promoted that really have questionable results that have been masssaged to make unsupported claims. i.e. - H&K atomic clock test. That is not to deny time dilation but just to say the final published report with claims data does not match the raw data collected.

In fact a secret memo to the US Navy that sponsored the test was gotten via FOIA (The Freedon of Information Act) where the H&K experimentors said the data was disappointing and proved nothing.

Not the same issue. Geology gives it's best assumption based on test data. But geology does not then also say the earth has a hollow core. That is claim something for which it has no evidence much less proof and which is in conflict with it's own stipulation that the core onsists of iron, etc.

In SR they stipulate that a clock is dilated but then go to the dilated frame and claim the clocks tick the same and hence the lesser accumulated time is because he traveled less distance.

If they simply retain their initial dilated clock stipulation in the traveling frame then you will see just what my diagrams show which is that spatial contraction fails to produce the predicted SR results.

You haven't been here almost (6) years and had to put up with James R's assertion that he is so much smarter than anybody that disagrees with him. I have.

I am full well ready to change my view if he or anyone answers my charges in a direct valid way but whzt you get is called a Crank, Crackpot, ignorant, incapable of learning, childish first grader,etc., instead of any real discussion.

I have been accused of being unable of doing grade school math when I have repeatedly posted correct calculations using relativity time dilation, length contraction, gamma, etc., not to mention I have had nuclear engineering.

So I have had to put up with a lot of personal abuse at the hands of egotistical people like James R that believe if you don't accept his view ofSR then you are ignorant and incapable of learning.

No. I believe most relativists fully understand the mathematics and the testing that has been done. But they refuse to look at the consequences of the theory in areas not tested or not supported by empirical data.

Are you saying this is your background? If so then yu superceed mine but I do have considerable formal training as well. Which isn't really at issue. The issue is basic physics and spatial contraction voids time dilation at the physical level (not the verbal or mathematical level).

Thank you. And that is not my whinning. It is my point. The dilation is to the common rest frame and NOT between them in terms of the relative velocity they once had to each other.

This seems a bit off. You would have to be a bit more specific about what you think I am doing or have done because it doesn't sound like anything I would agree to.

I have simply taken the assertions of SR and put them to the test. For example if you accept spatial contraction accdording to SR then a person accelerating AWAY from earth will reach a point where the faster he RECEEDS the CLOSER he gets to earth.

I suspect you never realized that bit of nonsense is unavoidable in SR.

Frankly no, math is not my forte'. I am not a physicist or mathematician. My issue and point do not depend on those, it depends on the very simple facts as stated.

Now I have had calculus 45 years ago but haven't ever really needed to use it and do not even pretend any more. So higher mathematics is not my thing but neither am I completely lost reading most papers because I have had some math and a lot of physics.

Now I have not attacked SR mathematics have I, so why should I be impressed by any? The problem is not mathematical. The problem is SR is based on an error in the postulates and the application of those postulates into a purely mathematical contrivence mostly devoid of any real physics.

The results have utility and can be used to make predictions but only if you disregard the ludricrus claims about relative velocity being a a cause of physical change.

 

MacM, it occurs to me that the people you are discussing SR with here are spacetimers. Could the problem be that SR without regard to geometry, though it is a beautiful theory by itself, takes on some added characteristics when discussed from the spacetime framework? Maybe without the spacetime framework you have to adjust the relative motion to a common initial frame. With spacetime, i.e. a defined geometry of points in spacetime, could the initial frame be established by the geometry, i.e. there was a beginning to which all motion is causually connected? Just asking.

 

Even it that is true (the big bang, perhaps) a more important question is how do the atoms of a cesium clock remember what was their common rest frame for billions of years? (They have had a zillion different accelerations ever hour since then as they collided with other atoms. Must be tought for them to keep a record of the important accelerations separate from all the others.)*

By MacM's "physical cause" of time dialtion which was provoked by various different ancient acceleration making now different velocities away from the ancient common rest frame the energy levels of the cesium atoms are now permanently and differently changed in each different frame and no longer as calculated by quantum theory.

Quantum theory's predictions are all wrong so the theory your ID cites is nonsense if MacM is correct. (Never mind that it agrees with experiment to 10 significant figures - that is just "illusion." MacM must be right!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

------------
* Actually for atoms there is never any common rest frame (unless the temperature is absolute zero).

 

Why must there be a memory or any way to actually calculate such an initial frame? That it could be calculated if all of those interacations were known is sufficient. Obviously that information cannot be known.

Hmm.

You would be jumping to conclusions to say that. You seem to take away from my question posed to MacM a conclusion. State what that conclusion is and I will respond. I posed the question to MacM for a reason. I wanted his response.

Which never occurs.

Let me bring your attention to a previous comment I made in a response to MacM where I referred to you (it was this post):

I said to MacM, "Again I have to test my understanding of what you (MacM) are telling me."

"Relative velocity even without further acceleration causes continued time dilation and so the accumulated time dilation gets greater and greater due to the different rates in the clock ticks caused by the initial but discontinued acceleration."

"I think that is what Billy T is saying too. He is saying that the SR affect is due to a difference in velocity. It has to be understood* that there had to be relative acceleration from a common rest frame to cause a difference in current velocity."

*I guess I'm asking you if when you say that the SR affect is due to a difference in velocity, do you acknowledge that you can't determine actual time dilation until there is a known profile of acceleration. Without that knowledge, the common rest frame cannot be determined and so there is uncertainty as to the amount of time dilation?

 

You may be right but I'm not sure.

BTW, you have posted over a hundred posts trying to bring this to a conclusion so at least lurk awhile. You may want to jump in to correct me since I agree with your view of SR as posted in P&M but may not know what I am agreeing with. Hence you could at least keep me straight or tell me I have to drop out from the discussion because in your view I am hopelessly lost.

Right now I have posed questions to MacM and Billy T. If they respond to me fine, if not I will not hound anyone.

 

Yes, that is my background. And I find it odd you say you've got a lot of formal training too when you later say "Frankly no, math is not my forte'. I am not a physicist or mathematician. " and "ow I have had calculus 45 years ago but haven't ever really needed to use it and do not even pretend any more. So higher mathematics is not my thing but neither am I completely lost reading most papers because I have had some math and a lot of physics.". So your 'formal training' isn't very much and even if it were you admit you've not done much in the last half century.

So I'm left more convinced you're attacking a theory you don't understand.

Again, it is real physics by any reasonable definition. Its used everyday by millions of people when they turn on their GPS.

And you didn't counter my retort to your reason for whining. No physicist doing special relativity says "If two objects have been in relative motion then its certain they measure different periods of time". I just asked two collegues (in a theoretical physics research group) if they think that statement is true and they both said no immediately and both agreed in my example, that any SO(n-1) transformation about the initial point, leaving the end point unchanged, will give a path which has an observer in relative motion yet who will measure the same period of time for the journey. Symmetries make an obvious counterexample to your claim.

Clearly you've failed to research what it is you don't understand.

 

I do not quite understand what you mean by “calculate an initial frame” Frames are coordinate systems or just postulated, often so that some object has unchanging position in that postulated coordinate system. One can even have a rotating coordinate system frame, but it would not be “inertial.”

MacM has the ridiculous POV that the atoms used by a cesium clock in frame A somehow know they are moving with speed S wrt what MacM calls the prior common reference frame, CFR, and change their energy levels accordingly so the correct calculation of the Physically Real time dilation is achieved ONLY by using the speed S in the SR formula.

The standard SR position is that there are many different time dilations, one for each different frame DISCRIBING the time dilation of frame A’s clocks. MacM has only one physically real time dilation.

Thus all frames should see it, if it is physically real. Frame B, which is identical with the CFR, does see it as the relative speed of A wrt B , Sab, = S. However, according to MacM that same physically real time dilation exists for frame C (the one with Sac = S/2) also. Or that same time dilation exists for frame D (the one with Sad = S/1,000,000, 000,000) I.e. frame D is almost moving with the same speed as frame A. In the limit “frame E” becomes identical with frame A. So now there is self contradiction. Frame E must see the physically real time dilation, yet MacM correctly assert that there is no observable time dilation in frame A. I.e. time dilation is not observable in A but is observable in E, yet E and A are identical! That is saying two mutually exclusive conditions both exist. For example the flipped coin is both heads up and tails up.

As far as the memory being required by MacM's SR, that is a reference to the fact that the cesium atoms of the clock must know to adjust their energy level spacing for a historical fact (That in the distant past, they were at rest in frame CFR and not adjust these energy levels for any other frame, such as B or C etc.) How can an atom remember it history? All memory, be it computer memory, memory in your brain, records on magnetic tape, books etc. ALL REQUIRE A PHYSICS STATE CHANGE. For example in your computer’s memory a transistor is conducting or not in your working (volatile) memory or in the non-volatile memory, some magnetic location on the disk (usually called drive C) is magnetized in one of two possible ways. Since the energy levels are set by quantum theory there is NO PHYSICAL difference between cesium atoms that could store any information. Even if there were, the limited number of electrons would not be adequate to store the number of bits required to encode the information about the CFR and S.

Another reason why MacM’s POV is ridiculous is that even if there were some way for the atoms of cesium to remember that center of gravity of the lump or gas of cesium they were part of was at rest in the CFR that does not mean that the atom was at rest in the CFR (unless the mass of cesium atoms was at absolute zero.) MacM’s concept of even the existence of a CFR is nonsense for atoms yet it is atoms that determine the tick rate of a cesium clock!

There are many other internal self contradictions in MacM’s SR – see post 198, 118 et. al.

Sorry if I misunderstood you to be making a statement. MacM often will not respond or does so by name calling (and other attacks on the person instead of the ideas that he stated) or asserting that all things contradicting his POV are BS, etc.

I agree with standard SR in that all SR effects depend ONLY on the CURRENT relative speed between the two frames being discussed. (and would be different in magnitude, but not kind, it the described frame A were to be described by the units of some other frame than frame B.) There is NO NEED TO GO BACK INTO HISTORY to find what MacM calls the CFR, or even anyway for atoms to remember any history of their accelerations or speed wrt the CFR.

Thus, if directed to me as the "you," I do NOT acknowledge your bold text above as true. Acceleration that has made a difference in the relative speeds of frame A & B is history. It could have acted on either frame A or frame B. All that enters into SR is the CURRENT relative speed of A wrt B (or B wrt A as for speed these are the same. For velocity they differ only by an minus sign.) Again not only can the CFR not be determined with out a historical record, for atoms (instead of large collections of atoms) it does not even exist! that CFR concept of MacM's as some special historical frame is just more of his NONSENSE. There are no "special" frames in standard SR; they exist only in MacM's nonsensical, self contradictory version of SR.

 

That is true. What I was trying to do was understand why MacM insisted on the CFR. To understand that, I tried to imagine that time dilation between two objects could be accumulated through decoding their diverse histories of changes and duration of motion since in the real world separate objects are constantly under the influence of different accelerating forces. Observed differences in tick rates at a point in time imply a certain time dilation. But I was trying to understand MacM’s thinking by proposing that the actual accumulated time dilation between two objects cannot be determined unless those objects were accelerated from a common frame and unless they are brought back to a common frame to read the clocks. I was giving MacM the benefit of the doubt by wondering if that is the reason for the bone of contention of the thread.

Now as far as my comments about calculating a common reference frame, each change in acceleration and duration at velocity has a time dilation effect that can be determined mathematically. If you knew, and we cannot know, but if all of the data were available then the equations could be worked backwards for each change back in time. Supposing that there was a CFR then it could be thus determined. Once the CFR was determined, then the time dilation of the accumulated differences in motion could be determined by bringing the object to a common frame and reading the clocks. This is not something that can be done but I was imagining the possibility of doing it IF the data was available.

It is true that quantum theory comes into play when talking about the “past” states and interactions of atoms and particles. I think that Quantum Field Theory comes into play when talking about particles and Special Relativity and I personally don’t have the knowledge to evaluate SR from a QFT perspective. I stated my understanding of the SR involved and you and MacM replied in similar ways. Now you have cleared up my question to you when you said, “I agree with standard SR in that all SR effects depend ONLY on the CURRENT relative speed between the two frames being discussed.”

I have no reason to say that MacM’s insistence of a CFR has any merit aside from trying to imagine how to determine the CFR. I think everyone agrees is not possible to determine that because of the lack of data and the uncertainty principle at the particle level.