Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Hardly worth pointing out your errors and inadequacies again but here are a few of them:

You fail again and again to specify which frame your statements apply to as your intuition tells you that it is unnecessary. For example, you think that with 60 mile separation (between A & B, the start and turn around points) in the rest frame the twin travels 120 miles in his frame to make the total round trip. With no foundation in fact or experiment you reject the fact his TOTAL trip for him was only 60 miles because that seems intuitively obvious to you that it was 120 miles.

Thus you are even in error to claim SR says "he traveled the full 60 miles" (between A & B). SR says that ONLY for the rest frame observer of the trip. The traveling twin's round trip was half that which the rest frame observed or would have made if he walked the round trip. It is because you cannot even get straight what SR asserts that I say you do not understand SR. Yes I know that you reject SR too, but that is no excuse for not even telling what SR states correctly and claiming that you do.

Also SR states it is IMPOSSIBLE for the clocks in two different frames to "tick in sync." You think they do. You just do not get it when you say they MUST again because that seems intuitively obvious to you, especially as SR agrees that in their own frames they do tick at the same rate.
Effectively, as James R has pointed out, you don't understand the subject is RELATIVITY of frame 1 wrt frame 2, NOT frame 1 and frame 2 separately with some relativity effects intuitively (instead of mathematically) considered.

Your lack of mathematical ability and any formal education course on relativity does not make mathematical facts derived from its postulates wrong. You would need to show at least one of them to be wrong, despite being tested and confirmed thousands of times, with 100% of all tests passed. We are waiting ....
--------------------------------------
Many posters here have pointed out specifically where your errors are. (I most recently in my post 1246.) You never can do the same. For example you tell no error in my short post 1242 includes:

"... As both clocks, in their own frame mark off the same duration second and both agree the other is separating from them at Speed, S, the duration of the trip is:
For RT: 2D/S
For TT: 2d/S

Because d < D, TT's clock records less than RT's clock does. ...

If you, contrary to > 100,000 physics Ph.D.s and millions of intelligent well-read laymen, think that d = D, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that extraordinary claim that they are all wrong and ONLY you* are correct. Note “proof” is not your "common sense" or opinion.

I and all others here are waiting for you to give any real proof that d = D instead of that d < D.

------------------
* A self-taught, retired, power-plant engineer and business man, who is not even able to follow the mathematical derivation of SR from its two basic postulates.
---------------------
---------------------
BTW:
I would also like you to support your claim that matter contracts with speed as that also requires the simple theory Bohr set forth for CALCAULTING the radius of the hydrogen atom to vary with speed. (I.e. the computation of the "Bohr radius" does not make used the atom's speed.) At least quantatively tell how the contraction you postulate to occur goes as a function of the speed. And what is that speed measured with respect to? (Please remember that atoms experience very frequent and large accelerations in collisions with other atoms for their entire history, so don't given any of your "common rest frame" nonsense when answering.)..."

Pick either and tell where the error is and prove you are correct instead of SR.
I.e. prove d = D
Or
Tell how Bohr's calculation for the size of the hydrogen atoms should be corrected to make it shrink with speed and what is the reference for that speed is - the fixed point the speed is measured wrt too.
SR does not need any reference point for speed as SR does not make your silly unsupported claim that matter shrinks with speed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I don't get why you don't understand that you haven't demonstrated anything not already known and agreed to.

OF COURSE THE MOVING OBSERVER RECORDS LESS TIME. I HAVE ALWAYS CONTENDED THAT WAS THE CASE.

It is just that it is due to clock tick dilation rather than any length contraction. The clock (as I have argued forever) being physically time dilated must be dilated in all frames in absoulte terms.

That does NOT mean the traveling twin knows or can measure that his clock is running slow. He most certainly cannot. He and the resting twin only know that:

v = d / 0.5t does NOT v = d/t Even though a third party looking at the two observers would conclude rightfully that relative velocity IS symmetrical.

That is in absoulte terms relative velocity is symmeterical but velocity computed in a local frame must use a local clock and if it ticks slower then velocity computes higher.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As I explained when I demonstrated the \(\frac{1}{\gamma}\) different tick rate, the fact the person, upon accelerating such that the marker post and he are now moving towards one another, finds that the distance between him and the marker post is actually \(\frac{1}{\gamma}\) what he thought it was. So he sees himself and the marker post close on one another at the same velocity as the stationary person thinks they are approaching one another but since there's less distance, by a factor of \(\frac{1}{\gamma}\), to cover the total time is reduced by the same factor.

In going from stationary, relative to the marker post, to moving relative to it, in a direction parallel to the line to the marker post, the person sees the distance to the post go from L to \(\frac{L}{\gamma}\).

'Running slow' is a relative term. He will know his clock will run slow compared to people who haven't felt the acceleration he has, though the maths rerquired to obtain precisely what various people measure is more complicated when you consider something more involved than the situation I described.

Except that only one of them has undergone the acceleration.

What you are describing is a situation where two people start in relative motion and one of them does not turn around and meet up with the other one such that they are then at relative rest. In this case there is added complexity due to how they compare their watches. In different frames, seperated in space, you're going to have the added issue of the fact the signal they send to one another with their clock times on will take time to reach one another. These are well known 'thought experiments' such as in terms of pulsar timings for rockets moving through space.

In your example you have failed to take into account these things, you do not consider how they will compare clocks. To compare clocks in the simplest manner they would change their motion so that they meet at a point in space and are at relative rest. But that would require they undergo accelerations and if one of them doesn't you end up with the situation I described before and the time dilation is felt by the one which does accelerate. If they accelerate in a symmetric manner then they'll get no relative time dilation. If they don't change their motions and do not meet up or are moving relative to one another you have to consider signal propogation and if you did, which you haven't, you'll find similar kinds of results.

These are all exercises given to kids when they first do relativity. You are still simply complaining about the fact you've failed to learn how to describe the systems properly. In particle accelerators you effectively have sets of 'clocks' moving relative to one another, as some particles are unstable and decay. Special relativity is included in quantum field theory and it successfully predicts the behaviour of the decay rates of the particles as they are blasted past and into one another. So as much as you like to claim SR is nonsense, you cannot avoid the fact its an accurate description of Nature.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Bullshi_. I clearly stated it was 60 miles between "A" & "B" in the resting frame. Further in this presentation I did not include a round trip so there was no 120 mile trip.

I merely pointed out that:

.....____TT___.....RT
v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t and therefore each stipulated condition by SR has clocks ticking at the same rate / mile and therfore must display the same time when TT returns home.

See these are not my errors they are your errors. Just what does 0.5d mean in yout math box?

 

I look forward to your comments explaining my BTW request:

"I would also like you to support your claim that matter contracts with speed as that also requires the simple theory Bohr set forth for CALCAULTING the radius of the hydrogen atom to vary with speed. (I.e. the computation of the "Bohr radius" does not make used the atom's speed.) At least quantatively tell how the contraction you postulate to occur goes as a function of the speed. And what is that speed measured with respect to? (Please remember that atoms experience very frequent and large accelerations in collisions with other atoms for their entire history, so don't given any of your "common rest frame" nonsense when answering.)..."

 

I just did above and BOY do you have egg on that silly face.

 

Correct hence no time dilation has occured.

.....___TT___...RT
v = 05.d/0.5t = d/t


End of discussion until you resolve that issue.

 

Alrighty, I had a look-see, and my suspicions were confirmed. The paper is crank city, and that's why it was published in a magazine dedicated to disproving Relativity in the first place. Look at the citations- the author, J.P. Wesley, cites himself 10 times, another author named "S. Marinov" 5 times, and the remaining references combine for a mere 9 times, including references to other cranks. There seem to be a couple of references to legitimate sources, but only in the sections discussing basic theory before all the garbage assumptions get added. In this same paper, the author referred to as S. Marinov is claimed to have determined the "absolute velocity" of our solar system, by supposedly measuring a changing speed of light depending on the direction of measurement.

So in essense MacM, to defend your arguments against the Relativistic version of particle time dilation, you cited a paper which claims that there's a measurable difference in the speed of light amounting to several hundred kilometres per second, depending on which direction you shine the beam. Also as far as actual measurements of actual muon fluxes this guy supposedly performed with his home-made rig, I don't see a single speck of actual data being presented in the paper, just results after crunching numbers. Well done.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That Georgia State University text is correct but your statement "that space does not physically contract but ONLY mass does (physically contract)" is not. (You do know, do you not, that almost all of a "solid mass" is the empty space between and within atoms. So even your claim is contra-factual nonsense.)

Again there is no physical change in the moving frame as you erroneously claim. GST text states that to other frames the length APPEARS to be "foreshortened in the direction of motion" not that it is foreshortened in the frame it rest in even it that frame is moving wrt to your frame I.e. There is NO physically contracted mass or space – only the appearance of that to other frames.

I tend to avoid the words "appears" and "is observed" etc as from experience I know if they are used you will tell that it is “delay of light effect, not a real contraction” for the other frames.You sometimes drag out your analogy example of the distant hammer seen hitting nail before the sound is heard, etc. So I try to say both time dilation and length contraction are the effect of correctly DESCRIBING events in another frame with your frame's units (SECONDS AND METERS).

For example, the cubic NaCl crystal remains a cubic crystal with the standard space between the Sodium and Chlorine ions in the moving frame but if measured as it passes rapidly by your frame with an x_ray flash crystal scattering experiment (making the standard Laue diagram photograph* from which the spacing between the ions can be calculated), then it would not be described as a cubic in our frame as it passes.

I.e. you are WRONG. Space in the moving frame, such as the length of a meter stick or the space between the ions in NaCl crystal DOES contract along the direction of motion if DESCRIBED in any other frame, but as the GSU text clearly states does not in the moving frame - NO physical contraction of space or mass as you assert. See the now blue GSU text where this is stated. I.e. in its own rest frame the length (space) is maximum or “uncontracted” but appears or is DESCRIBED as contracted in all other frames. You own GSU clearly states you are wrong to think there is physical contraction in the frame itself (it own rest frame). That is ONLY an SR effect seen in ALL OTHER FRAMES. GSU is a good school -You should stick to giving reference from crackpot magazines as you did to CptBork (see his reply in 1268)
------------------
* For nearly 100 years now these Laue diargam process calcualtions have been how the spacing of not only crystals, but even of the space arangenemt of proteins, etc. like DNA are measures: "... Von Laue developed a law that connects the scattering angles and the size and orientation of the unit-cell spacings in the crystal, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1914"..." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laue_diffraction

You probably have never even seen one - I have and helped process it by hand to get the unknown (to us) crystal spacing and type, while still an undergraduate at Cornell, in a very special, experimental, five-year physic program, which was soon droppped as too rough for most of even the very selected students.

More on Laue method at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laue_equations and on not adequately recognized now for his great contrubutions to science Laue at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_von_Laue

PS As both sub femtosecond X-ray flashes and large NaCl crystals exist I suspect might even possible to do such a Laue measurement with crystal oppositely orbiting to the a measurning satellite, if you could avoid them colliding, but the relative v/C ratio may be too small to see the tiny contraction effect.

 

All I see is a relativists making verbal attacks and no specific refutation of their math or process of the test. I see no attempt to either confirm or falsify their work. All you and others do is lable them and dump on their work.

I am not saying they were correct . I AM SAYING YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THEY WERE WRONG. Because you don't like the result is not adequate basis to disregard their claims. Now either show specific flaws in their math (you did complain the first link didn't show their math) or shut up.

Because at this juncture you have their math and haven't posted any flaw or errors.

And finally this is not the issue at hand. You still need to resolve the v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t claim.

As far as a home rig I've made one myself and measured a 60 trillionths pound force difference in gravity so stuff your attitude regarding big budget projects.

 

And being so educated you surely know that atoms are held together by electrostatic and atomic forces forces thatv are substantially different and stronger than the vacuum of space.

BTW: How does that translate into your assertion that mass does not contract. What about all this Bohr atom BS.

Shssh. You are really a piece of work aren't you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You were wrong then and you are wron now. You are wrong about this whole issue. give it up you have been exposed for what you are - a great pretender. Well actually NOT so great.

 

What's there to confirm or falsify? Guy says he set up some Geiger counters, writes down a few basic equations, then quotes his final result without showing any sort of sample data whatsoever. The only actual numbers he gives are in a brief table citing other cranks' estimates of the solar system's "absolute velocity", many of these numbers conflicting with each other as they lie well outside each others' error bounds. No attempts to account for the sources of cosmic ray muons. No attempts to have others verify that his equipment and experimental setup are worth two sh*ts.

If you read my post carefully, I mentioned that the author in the article you cited in turn cites "S. Marinov" several times. The citations of Marinov's work in turn refer to the claims that you can measure a noticeable difference in the speed of light, a difference of several hundred km/s, depending on the direction in which you make the measurement here on Earth. You want to bet your tartan on that one?

 

You have no idea what physical reality is?. Well I believe you when you say that based on your conduct here.

End of discussion.

 

FYI: The solar system velocity to gallaxies of around 350 km/sec is well know and not generated by a bunch of cranks as you claim.

1 - Not required but any attempt to get mainstream to look over his shoulder would produce the same results my post is recieving here - Nada and BS.

2 - It is incumbent on you to confirm or falsify such results not just blow them off based on the assumption the results are wrong because it conflicts with your religious faith in SR.

I have actually had conversations with Marinov. I didn't care for him but now he is deceased and can't defend his own work so I have no comment.

But their results do not depend on a variable light speed so what is your point?.

 

That is always your perogative but I suspect others would see that as admission on your part that you failed to refute the ggharges I have leveled.

But it does seem that if you do not comprehend what is physically real then there is little to discuss. You clearly don't care about physics but consider mathematics to be physics and that just isn't true.

There are physical realities associated with or I should say should be the basis of mathematics but in SR's case the mathematics are just formulated to produce a preconvieded idea and not based on empericial test data.

Yes I know about postulate two but I'm tallking about the inclusion of length contraction in the mix. Length contraction only comes about due to preconcieved ideas that there is no absolute frame and you simply have no proof of that.

However the diagrams tend to prove problematic for the assertions of SR if an absolute frame exists or not.

 

Glad you enjoy yourself because I am. I love to see smart guys stumped and you guys are stumped over v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d/t.

All you can do is attack and look for other topics to interject. Lets try actually explaining the process here. I don't mean recite SR math we know what that claims. I mean explain just how physically you want to assert that time dilation occurs when it is shown that under the stipulations of SR regarding conditions of the traveling twins trip both his clock and his resting brother twin's clock are ticking the same number of ticks per mile.