Mac's Final Relativity Thread

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by MacM, Jun 30, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    In your dreams only. It has nothing to do with time dilation, as I've already explained 5 times in detail to you.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Thank you for making a complete ass out of yourself. I'll be posting links to several of your other posts where you have argued just the opposite and I'll be posting SR assertions showing you sir are full of crap.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Muon-catalyzed fusion was shown to be impossible back in the 40's (in an industrially practical manner, that is), so I too would love to see MacM's patent on this impossible machine.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    Great. We (the Queen of England and I) are both waiting.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    1 - I do not lie.

    2 - You are damn lucky you hide behind a computer monitor and not within my physical reach. I'd teach you some manners.

    No [atents yet, no model but I haold several patents and the Chief Nuclear Engineer, Mr John Gilbert, of the Fusion Energy Foundation (1980) came to my company and reviewed the design and found no obvious flaws. His conclusion it merits further study. So stuff your attitude where your brains are and I don't mean your skull.

    Well maybe because someone you have called a crackpot has you stumpted and you can't come up with a valid rebuttal for a simple grade school math proof of the failure of your pet theory. You are left with nothing but efforts to attack the messenger and try to mitigate my post. Unfortunately for you others have noted by now that you have completely failed to produce any rebuttal. Your mish-mash gobbledy-gook statements don't cut it.

    You are really showing your ignorance here, I hiope you know that. I'd ask you some pertinent fusion questions but you would just go on Google look up the answers and then come back pretending to know it all like you have just done.

    If you think I'm in the habit of blowing patenability by having a public showing you are nuts. But the facts are I have plenty of proof as to my work. i.e. -correspondance from several world recognized names asshole. But I have no intention of going down this road with you because I really give a shit what you think.

    Now that is funny. My family has really enjoyed the fact that I have owned and operated an R&D Corp that also gave all three of my sons jobs.

    Frankly I can't find any sympathy for you. You deserve every firing you will have from being a lousy cheating egotistical low life employee. You certainly have never owned and operted a major company or managed $1M contracts, done NASA contracts, etc. Poor little peon piss ant. Must be frustrating to not be able to move up the ladder.

    No you ignored the fact that everybody but you refers to the muon as a fat electron. So agan stuff it where you hide qhat little of you could be considered brains.

    Go play with yourself since you choose to not respond to the physics issue.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Right. Except we aren't still back in the 40's dumb ass. Major changes have been made since the 40's and you stand corrected as to proving it can't be practical.

    I assume you are basing your arguement along the lines of the energy required to produce the muon vs the 100 or so fusions each muon could produce before sticking and dropping out of the cycle. Well that problem may just have been overcome.

    But in any case I hardly think you are an expert.
     
  10. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    Nope, new developments have still not led to a feasible method. Forget about the 1940's, you're still stuck in the 1840's, you crazy old fart.

    I'm not an expert, I just know that you're full of hot air. I'd love to see you try and build your ridiculous machine and make it work, considering you don't know the first thing about what a muon actually is (and can't know, since you refuse to study modern physics).
     
  11. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Now we see your true colours, over and above your wish to delude yourself and as many people as you can sucker as possible, you don't settle arguments with logic, you prefer a bit of violence. Excellent 'taking the high ground' from you.

    If I were face to face with you I imagine that yes, I would be more polite, but then if I were face to face with you this discussion wouldn't have gone on as long as it has. If you walked into my office and make the claims you have I'd have explained your errors on a white board, you'd have denied them then you'd have left. Further more, I imagine if we were face to face you'd not make the enormous delusional lies you are, you'd not claim to have designed a muon catalysed fusion machine face to face because it'd only take a few minutes of discussion, which you'd be unable to ignore or run away from, to see you have no clue about any of that. On the internet people make claims they have no intention of backing up or feel safer in the knowledge they have Google at their fingertips. For instance, more than a few people claim to have physics PhDs because Wikipedia will tell them what 'isospin' is and they can try to fool people on forums. They'd not make such claims in real life because without Google they'd fall flat on their face in a conversation infront of a blackboard in a minute or two.

    So nothing to show for it then? The patents you do have are in unrelated stuff and a cursory glance is a long way from an indepth viability study from particle physics experts.

    The fact you do not understand the rebuttal, even when only grade school maths is used, does not mean the rebuttal is not there. Its funny, the only person who thinks noone has rebutted you is you. But then the only person who thinks you're a great mind is you. Nothing to show for it, still. Other than a relative with an IQ of 165, which obviously makes you a genius by-proxy.

    Condensed matter physics or plasma physics aren't my thing, I have made no illusions otherwise. But its funny you say you'd challenge me, when I've challenged you to do relevant questions on relativity, stuff which was literally my homework years ago, and you've refused. Not "'I'll do it' but secretly I'll find the answers using Google", no you just flat out refused and now you're trying to have a go at me because you think might do something you have done?! Nice hypocrisy.

    I've demonstrated I'm a theoretical physics research student. I have not said I work in fusion or anything like that (though I know a few people doing things tentatively related to magnetic trapping systems), but I am working with relativity based stuff and I've previously challenged you to do a few relativity questions, given this thread is all about relativity. Shock horror, you ran away.

    How long ago did you design this thing? You claim you've had an expert look at it and see no problems. Why no patents then? Oh yeah because you're full of crap.

    Don't blame me when your arse makes claims you can't back up.

    Didn't ask for any.

    So me asking you to put up or shut up when you claim you've designed a machine which has eluded decades of researchers with billions of dollars of research money and you claim you're superior to all theoretical physicists is me being egotistical? I don't think we're working on the same dictionary.

    And 'cheating'? Care to explain? You seem to be throwing out insults you can't back up.

    No, I'm 25 and in academia. Even if I were a clone of you I wouldn't have done those things by 25, my age hinders me. And I made no claims to either. You've made a lot of claims, backed up very very few of them. Throwing "I've done NASA contracts!" out when asked to back up your claims about a fusion reactor is simply trying to dodge the issue. It's a bad sign for you.

    Everyone? Everyone other than every single theoretical physicist and textbook on particle physics I've ever come across and likewise for everyone I work with (who are themselves theoretical physicists). And on the rare occasions someone might use such a turn of phrase it will be talking to people who don't do particle physics and will be in reference to the muons MASS, it is a massive version of the electron.

    Repeatedly I've asked you to provide the physical size of the electron and the muon so as to back up your claims about 'fat' meaning 'wider' but you've failed to provide. So instead of finding out how other people interpret the word 'fat' in this context you're simply making up your own interpretation and proclaiming that's everyone elses. Excellent logic, precisely the kind of ignorant self delusion we've come to expect from you.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    1 - Logic has been rejected by you when it comes to thephysics issue v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t. So that is your failure.

    2 - It is not a matter of an arguement when you call me a liar asshole. You have absolutely NO bases to slander me in that manner and yes I'd whip your ass if you were near by.

    Unitil you choose to actually address the physics issue we have nothing to discuss.
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Considering that you are just running off at the mouth about things you have no knowledge or actual understanding I'll pass on making continued corrections.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Just for starters:



    *******************************************************************************************************
    http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_length_contraction

    More about time dilation
    The term "time dilation" is applied to the way that observers who are moving relative to you record fewer clock ticks between events than you. In special relativity this is not due to properties of the clocks, it is due to shorter distances between events along an observer's path through spacetime.

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

    So James R is once again proven a flip-flopper, distorter or liar.


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

    http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
    Length Contraction
    Instead of analyzing the motion of the tau from our frame of reference, we could ask what the tau would see in its reference frame. Its half-life in its reference frame is 3.05 x 10-13 s. This does not change. The tau goes nowhere in this frame.
    How far would an observer, sitting in the tau rest frame, see an observer in our laboratory frame move while the tau lives?
    We just calculated that the tau would travel 1.8 mm in our frame of reference. Surely we would expect the observer in the tau frame to see us move the same distance relative to the tau particle. Not so says the tau-frame observer -- you only moved 1.8 mm/gamma = 0.09 mm relative to me. This is length contraction.
    How long did the tau particle live according to the observer in the tau frame? We can rearrange d = v x t to read t = d/v. Here we use the same speed, Because the speed of the observer in the lab relative to the tau is just equal to (but in the opposite direction) of the speed of the tau relative to the observer in the lab, so we can use the same speed. So time = 0.09 x 10-3 m/(3 x 108)m/sec = 3.0 x 10-13 sec. This is the half-life of the tau as seen in its rest frame, just as it should be!
    ******************************************************************************
    So length contraction is asserted to cause loss of accumulated time in the tau frame contrary to James R's flip-flop that length contraction is not associated with time dilation.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2009
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    First note MacM's distortion and MacM’s replacement of his prior “causes” or "produces" with now “associated.” James (and I) have always stated that both time dilation and space contraction are mathematical results derived from the two postulates of SR, so of course they are "associated" but never have claimed either produced or caused the other. This is a straw horse idea, MacM either intentionally tries to foster onto SR or simply does not understand what SR states about their relationship. MacM tried in several posts to assert that SR claimed time dilation was produced by length contraction. For example here:
    The quote below in blue, from MacM's reference, also provides an interesting example of how MacM selectively mines and distorts reputable sources to support his POV. (Bold is in the original. I have however made larger the part that states (as I did for the cosmic ray muons that they [and anyone else moving with them in their frame] experience the thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere to be contracted to only a few dozen meters so the muons reach the surface of the Earth. And I inserted the red text after that part. MacM rejects SR’s prediction of space contraction.):
    “Instead of analyzing the motion of the tau from our frame of reference, we could ask what the tau would see in its reference frame. Its half-life in its reference frame is 3.05 x 10-13 s. This does not change. The tau goes nowhere in this frame.How far would an observer, sitting in the tau rest frame, see an observer in our laboratory frame move while the tau lives?
    We just calculated that the tau would travel 1.8 mm in our frame of reference. Surely we would expect the observer in the tau frame to see us move the same distance relative to the tau particle. Not so says the tau-frame observer -- you only moved 1.8 mm/gamma = 0.09 mm relative to me. This is length contraction.
    Just as the cosmic ray muon passes thru a greatly contracted atmosphere, despite MacM’s claims there is no contraction of space.
    How long did the tau particle live according to the observer in the tau frame? We can rearrange d = v x t to read t = d/v. Here we use the same speed, Because the speed of the observer in the lab relative to the tau is just equal to (but in the opposite direction) of the speed of the tau relative to the observer in the lab, so we can use the same speed. So time = 0.09 x 10-3 m/(3 x 108)m/sec = 3.0 x 10-13 sec. This is the half-life of the tau as seen in its rest frame, just as it should be!
    Note there is NO PHYSICAL CHANGE in the moving frame as MacM asserts. In post 1166, I pointed out that if the SR effects were due to a physical change in the moving frame then ALL the millions of other frames would seem the SAME time dilations and space contractions regardless of their speeds wrt the “moving frame" with it “physical change.” I.e. MacM’s version of SR is self contradictory if applied to three or more frames.

    Also note MacM is ignoring this post:http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2369069&postcount=1329
    because it irrefutably points out about a dozen errors and false claims MacM has made. I may reproduce them one at a time in future posts, to see if MacM can handle it tiny pieces.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2009
  16. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    You can't correct anything I said, because you have no corrections to make. I have knowledge of these things, including mathematical details, unlike you. I simply admitted I'm not an expert on muon physics, whereas in your case, by your own admission, you can't even do calculus anymore (assuming you ever could), so I'm 100% certain you don't know squat about muons aside from whatever Wikipedia says. When you've made billions of dollars with your muon catalyzed fusion machine and it's all over the news, then you can go ahead and be a braggart. In the meantime, I say I'm closer to developing a working steam-powered rocket ship than you are to discovering cold fusion.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    You haven't performed the required Lorentz transforms. If you did then you'd find you end up predicting EXACTLY WHAT IS MEASURED IN NATURE.

    You seem to be saying "If I utterly ignore what special relativity says and mindlessly repeat the same debunked half sentence then I falsify special relativity!". Are you that thick?

    Assuming you haven't lied about your job you would be a fairly successful but unremarkable engineer. Certainly not unique nor unusually successful. You claim to have designed a viable muon catalysed fusion device. Let's consider this for a moment. Some of the most powerful and rich governments have been pouring tens of billions of dollars into energy research for decades, the energy sector is probably the largest sector of the entire planet's economy, it makes countries which are little more than Sun blasted rock into world powers, so its safe to say that a clean unlimited energy source would be worth trillions and the inventor would end up making Bill Gates, The Sultan of Brunei and most countries outside the G20 look like impoverish street urchins. You, given your job and contract partners, had all the right contact to get the right people to see your work and to get further investment, development and it off the drawing board, up and built and which point you and your family buy a nice retirement home.... like the entire East Coast.

    And yet, here we are. You're a 'nobody' in the grand sense of the word. Outside your little area in industry you aren't know, you are not a household name. You have no patents, you have nothing to show for it. Infact, we've established you have little or no grasp of the kind of physics relevant to such a device. Ultra high temperature plasma undergoing fusion under magnetic constriction requires, at the very least, a fundamental grasp of magnetohydrodynamics and nuclear theory. Muon catalysed fusion? Now we're into condensed matter and quantum field theory. Can you provide me with any publications you might have to your name where you outline the muon's contribution to the process? It's just that if you don't grasp special relativity, which is part of electrodynamics, the description of high velocity charged particles and their electromagnetic fields (which is basically 'plasma physics') then you grasping muon catalysation of nuclear processes is highly unlikely.

    Your lack of understanding in this thread makes me think you lie about understanding muon catalysed nuclear processes. Your lack of understanding in this thread makes me think you have no grasp of any physics relevant to such physical phenomena. And the fact that despite you working in the perfect position in the R&D industry and you claiming to be very good at it all you have no patents and your work got absolutely nowhere. If you were so amazing at your job and you're not lying and you're such a science whiz, why aren't you getting billions of dollars/euros/pesos from R&D contracts into solving the global energy crisis (and thus pretty much any issue we have, as global warming, recycling etc all go away)?

    Could it be you're full of BS? Please explain why someone shouldn't be asking you these questions.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Selfserving babble. Billy T you haven't rebutted anything and the blue does not change the red in my post. Of sourse I read the blue part but the key element is the fact that SR advocates length contraction is the reason the TT is youneger from TT's frame of reference. Length contraction is the only way Einstein could make things match based on the assumption that there is no absolute frame and v = c is a limit, etc.

    The bottom line is that the twin arguement is that he is younger because his clock accumulated less time making the trip because he traveled less distance than the rest frame measures. The consequence is that from the resting frames perspective his clock becamec dilted.

    Now go ahead pull a James R and back pedal on what SR claims.

    When you are done running off at the mouth and telling these folks SR BS, dogma and rhetoric you might even try to address my falsification using physics.

    Oh I'm sorry you don't seem to actually know any.

    For all onlookers out there remember:

    v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t which states mathematically that both the TT and RT clocks are ticking in sync hence there is no time dilation and when TT returns home RT's clock must display the same accumulated time. SR's assertion that RT sees TT go farther and accumulated more time is a verbal falshood, a physical lie and SR is thereby falsified.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    More self-serving babble with NO rebuttal of physical facts I have posted.

    You continued effort to attack the messenger isn't working. The proof is to simple and clear. Dodeging it doesn't make it go away. Crying "It ain't true" doesn't cut it. Making false statements about me only shows you have no real answer. We get that.

    I never said a god damn thing about discovering coldc fusion. You are pathetic.

    I'll give you credit for admitting you really know jact shit about the subject

    Unlike you I have not stated it worked, will work or any such conclusion. I said what Mr Gilbertson said "It merits further study".

    FYI: While this device is not patented I have many that are and some that won me a NASA contract so go to hell dumb ass.
     
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Oh, so use the same mathematical formality that predicts something to prove it is wrong? Really, I hadn't thought of that approach. Maybe that is why I have been successful and you aren't.

    Dumb ass. Your math transforms are nothing more than a process based on the assumption that length contraction exists in the first place.

    Get real.

    No. If I set aside my bias and look objectively at the situation and do a simple basic physics calculation I find what SR claims is BS and it falsifies itself.

    Ha. Well I don't lie and I don't consider myself remarkable. However, I have been successful. But this has nothing to do with the falsification issue.

    Well there we go again. Please post a link to where I have stated my design is "viable". What I said was Mr Gilbertson, Chief Nuclear Engineer of the Fuzxion Energy Foundation, (1980) said "It merits further study".

    That would be nice.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But unlike you I'm pragmatic and not egotistical.

    Just your opinion of course. Lets keep this in perspective.

    Actually not true. My work is in fact cited in college engineering text books as a "Modern Industrial Development", I've also been part of articles in professional magazines, my name was openly raised at an international symposium in Europe in the 70's and back in 1977, 2 June, Paul Harvey talked about me.

    So while I would agree that today most folks would not recognize my name that wasn't true 30 years ago. That has nothing to do with the issue at hand, just keeping the record straight. Since you really don't know me or of my accomplishments and your slander is just that slander.

    WOW. No need to continue this dribble. Thanks for proving you are full of shit.

    If you click on the following link and then enter these patent numbers you can review the patents. To see Full Images you may need to download a special viewer called Altiff but it is free on the US Patent site.

    http://patft.uspto.gov/

    1 7,472,676 Differential with guided feedback control for rotary opposed-piston engine
    4 7,116,006 Wind energy conversion system
    5 7,098,552 Wind energy conversion system
    6 6,952,058 Wind energy conversion system
    7 4,322,798 Traction pressure control system
    8 4,192,201 Traction controlled in-line transmission
    9 4,192,200 Variable ratio gear transmission
    10 3,292,365 60/412 60/495 60/497 60/565 (Note: 1st and Not a viable patent)

    You can see the engine run on u-tube. Be sure to scroll down from the main video because there are (5) videos showing the inside motion as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/BigMacdaddyAZ

    BigMac is my eldest son's username in Arizona. He now runs the company. The Wind patents are assigned to a company in Albq, N.M. called WECS, and has been favorably rated by NASA SATOP.

    So lets get back to the issue.

    Post a physics rebuttal to the issue of falsification.
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2009
  21. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,385
    The paper you cited for this effect contains no actual data, cites cranks for the portions that disagree with existing physics, and claims you can measure a directional variation in the speed of light here on Earth. Guess you thought if you waited long enough, we'd forget all about it and you could just recycle this garbage once again.

    Pions decaying to muons release one neutrino, not two. Further proof you have no clue what you're talking about.

    So then why do you keep repeating obvious fallacies, in the face of overwhelming evidence that you don't know what you're talking about? All you've been doing this whole time is bleat and cry "bullshit", complaining that because something goes beyond your personal comprehension it must be wrong, and then making bogus arguments that keep getting shot down. Very impressive.

    You quoted this article from Wikipedia in making your claim. Let's see what the first 2 lines of that article say...

    I guess you thought cold fusion only occurs when it's done in your beer fridge. Don't worry, I know it's physically impossible for you to contradict yourself, we'll just revise the English language accordingly.

    I said I'm not an expert, I never said I know "jact shit" about this. Get your frontal lobes checked.

    Who gives a fuck what Mr. Gilbertson thinks? What's his big revolutionary contribution to the world of science?

    Are you the guy who entered imperial units instead of metric and caused the Mars Climate Orbiter to crash? Did any of this work you claim to have done for NASA have anything whatsoever to do with Relativity?
     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    For what it is worth this is the response to anything anti-relativity. It is not impressive. You must show that what they claim they did and the results are not replicated. To just blow it off is both typical and worthless.

    Where in the hell did you get that? I have never discussed neutrinos period.

    So why do you and others keep repeating your personal attacks which are baseless and false but do not respond to the physics of my falsification?.

     
  23. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Congratulations MacM you almost* got it right (except for the red word)*. Yes the high speed traveling twin, TT, did make a shorter trip (Even though he did turn arround at the agreed point as in his frame the start-to-turnaround distance is less for the TT than for his "stay at home" brother. (That distance was contracted for the TT.)

    The "stay at home" brother of course understands what happened differently. He saw his brother, the TT, turn around correctly where they agreed and explains the fact that TT is younger by fact that all his clocks (including heart beats) are advancing time more slowly.

    Exactly the same story for the cosmic ray muons -They travel thru a very contracted atmosphere and we, in the same frame as that atmosphere, understand them reaching Earth's surface with few decays as their clocks are running slowly.

    SUMMARY: There are different ways of understanding the same facts in different frames - Each is correct in frame it applies. Neither depends upon the other - TT would travel less, even if his brother did not exist to understand / explain /describe/ what happened via "time dilation" and conversely.
    For example we understand / explain /describe/ the muons as in a "time dilated" frame, even though they do not understand / explain /describe/ anything.
    Each POV is separately valid (and follows from the SR math, independently.)

    Yes, unlike your denial that space contraction exists, James & I accept that it and time dilation do, but not that either is the cause of the other. You falsely claim we did and now falsely say we are trying to "back pedal." That is just another duck and weave of yours or a deliberate lie. If you think not, then quote where either of us said one caused the other. We understand that they have equal footing as both are mathematical logical derivations from the two basic SR postulates.

    Here are two of your many other errors I noted in post 1329 for you to try to wiggle out of (Note that unlike your unsupported false claims about what James and I said, I first quote you making your false statements.) :
    Here was my reply to these two of the dozen or so errors MacM made in just post 1321:
    I do the same for MacM’s (3) & (4) in a later post, but if you can’t wait go to:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2369069&postcount=1329
    and read about a dozen other equally stupid and/or false MacM assertions.

    ---------------
    *I said "Almost got it right" because while "time dilation" is true - what the stay-at-home understand is the cause of his brother being younger, there is no claim in SR, (or by James or me) that "time dilation" is a "consequency" of space contraction. "time dilation" comes directly from the SR math, not a derivative form "space contraction."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page