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

Not open for further replies.
1. ### noodlerBannedBanned

Messages:
751
Bro, if the only thing that is reliably physical is a ticking clock, how do you know how fast it's ticking?
Is it possible that the clock will only have a rate which is relative to some other period of time, and if so, which one is the rate which will reliably dilate?

How does the absence of an absolute frame of rest deal with this, since fairly obviously there can be no absolutely exactly relative time (whatever the hell that is)?

3. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
There is no physical change in the moving frame, M, (permanent or otherwise) so no need of a "physical cause. "

Not only is there no evidence for that "physical change" but if there were a physical change in M, then two other frames, A & B, would describe the time dilation of its physically changed clocks the same, instead of differently as they do.

SUMMARY: No Physical Change occurs in moving frame M. If it did it, then all other frames would describe SR effects the same way.
This is just one of the many internal self contradictions in MacM's SR.

Fundamentally MacM's methods fail to be self consistent because he postulates the existence of special frame that he calls the Common Rest Frame, CRF. It is sort of a replacement for an absolute rest frame. When there are three (or more) frames M, A & B, then the CRF of M & A, CRFma, differs* from the CRF of M & B, which is called CFRmb for compact reference.

See MacM's SR computational methods here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2303345&postcount=93

Thus the "MacM approved" computations of Time Dilation of M wrt A, TDma (A considered to still be at rest in CRFma) which used the speed of A wrt CRFma differs from TDmb which uses the speed of B wrt CRFmb in the same calculation procedure; yet MacM also claims that both TDs should be equal as they are caused by a single "physical change" in moving frame M.

SUMMARY of this self contradiction in MacM's SR:
(1) TDma is equal to TDmb as caused by a single physical change in frame M.
(2)TDma not equal to TDmb when computed by MacM approved SR procedures as one computation uses M's speed wrt CFRma and the other M's speed wrt CFRmb but in the same calculation procedure.

Posts 118, 198, 1166, and several others have MATHEMATICAL proof of other self contradictions within MacM's SR using ONLY the “MacM approved” (in post 93) computational procedures. (No use of standard SR.)
----------------
*Assuming A is not identical with B they differ. I.e. there is a relative speed between A & B to make them different inertial frames with different acceleration histories, which produced their now different speeds wrt to Frame M. M, however, in its past history was once at rest in frame A (to make CFRma) and at some other time in the past, M was at rest in frame B (to make CFRmb).

P.S.
This is probably my last post in this soon to be closed thread. I wanted to leave it with one clearly stated demonstration of self contradiction in Mac's SR and references to several others. I have posted here because MacM’s intuitive based SR is likely to mislead other if not corrected. The truth of Relativity IS counter intuitive – but so are many other now known facts about the way the universe actually is. For example the Sun does not go around the Earth – It only appears to. Time does not pass in other frames as fast as it does in ours – we only falsely assume that it does. Electrons do not have both an exact position and speed for reasons more fundamental than our measurement limitations. Etc.

SUMMARY:
DON’T BE MISLEAD BY CRACKPOTS, no matter how intuitive plausible their story is, if it conflicts with mathematically derived results based only on very well confirmed physical experiments.

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2009

5. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
On (1): All clocks are cyclic (repeating) processes such as the swing of a pendulum, the dropping of water, the rise and fall of the tides, the Earth orbiting the sun, the oscillation of atoms or tiny quartz crystal in your Timex wrist watch. The passage of time is also shown by non-cyclic processes such as the aging of a baby or the rusting of a nail. There is only the comparison of one process rate to another - not really any "flow of time" to be accurately measured.

Physics (and chemistry) describe these processes with equations, function of time, F(t), but this is really just telling how one process F is related to another process C, where process "C" is the swings of a pendulum or orbits of the Earth, etc. I.e. C is some "clock process." There is no single rate ever - only the comparison of the rate of one process to the rate of another. Clocks are useful (in physics) because in many different F processes the F(t) description of it is simpler equations than if for we tried to write F(r) where "r" is the rusting process of a nail. Thus, man inverted time, t, and built clocks of increasing accuracy as the centuries passed. In some sense, time does not exist - Only a multitude of different processes which can be compared but clock processes are particularly useful ones with which to compare other processes, such as the fall of a stone from a high tower.

On (2a): Yes. As just explained it is always true that "clock will only have a rate which is relative to some other period of time."
On (2b): Nothing ever dilates when compared to other process in its own frame if that frame is "inertial." Time dilation occurs ONLY when the process of one frame are described by the clocks of another frame. That is when they are compared to some process in another frame. The interesting and counter intuitive thing about SR's mathematical conclusions is that ANY process in frame A when compared to (DESCRIBED BY) the same process in frame B is proceeding more slowly than the same process in frame B. I.e. Frame B's describes frame A's clock processes as "ticking more slowly" than frame B's clocks tick; yet, Frame A's describes frame B's clock processes as "ticking more slowly" than frame A's clocks tick. This is very counter intuitive but true just like the earth orbiting the sun is counter intuitive, but true. It will take many generations of good education for most to accept that SR's "reciprocity" is true, just as it did for earth being round or orbiting the sun. Humans have a strong natural bias to think there is something special about where they live in the universe and that truth is what they see and have experience with. Eventually rational thought and experiments do reveal a more true understanding.

On (3):You will need to pose your question more clearly as if something is absent, non-existent, it does not "deal with anything." Your final words are very hard to understand. "absolutely exactly relative.” I too have no idea what is both relative and absolute (time, speed, red, sweet, or anything).

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 24, 2009

7. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Determining an absolute rest is I believe an impossible trask at this juncture. However logically it does seem it should exist. Now how that relates to the principle of relativity is another matter and is something that needs to be resolved by experiment and formal construction.

The only thing that can be said with certainty at this juncture is that the assertion of SR that length (space) contracts as a function of relative velocity is a falicy.

I have posted several scenarios showing that relative velocity doesn't cause time dilation. Relative velocity exists to trillions of other objects at the same time without you having moved from a rest condition and none of the other objects actions affect you or objects in your frame.

The only affect supported by empirical data is time dilation between a clock and it's former inertial rest reference.

Three clocks "A", "B" & "C" are at common rest at location "C" and "A" & "B" are
launched out to the ends of a prearranged course where they have equal acceleration
range from points 'X' to the test start lines "S" which are equal distance from "C" in
opposite directions.

A------------->!...................................................><...................................................!<-------------B
X---------------S------------------------------------------C------------------------------------------S--------------X

Fig 1

Once there "A" & "B" send "Ready" light signals to "C". Upon receipt of both
signals "C" then simultaneously sends "Start" light signals to both "A" & "B". They
immediately upon receipt launch simultaneously according to "C" and accelerate equally
until they simultaneously reach the "S" line. Both set their clocks to t=0, cut their rockets
and go inertial and send "Confirmation" light signals to "C".

Upon the simultaneous receipt of the "A" & "B" signals "C" then sets his clock according
to the time required for the light signals to travel from the "S" positions based on known
distance and the speed of light 'c'.

Assuming "S" is 0.6 light hours from "C" and "A" & "B" achieve a 0.6c velocity then
"C" knows to set his clock to 0.6 times 60 minutes = 36 minutes so that all three clocks will
have been set to t=0 at the same time according to "C"

At the 0.6c velocity "A" & "B" will require 1 hour to make the trip according to "C".
But as "A" & "B" pass by "C" simultaneously they transmit their clock data to "C" by
digital signal and due to time dilation they will have only accumulated:

t' = t(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 = 0.8 x 60 minutes = 48 minutes. This is because "A" & "B" had
symmetrical acceleration and equal velocity to the common rest frame.

What is important here is that in spite of having had relative velocity to each other
"A" & "B" clocks accumulate the same amount of time. So relative velocity did not
generate time dilation between them. They could just as well have launched from
the same end of the course and been co-moving with no relative velocity because
the end result will be the same.

The only time dilation is to the common rest frame. The SR view that "A" sees "B"
dilated and "C" dilated and vice-versa does not exist once relative velocity terminates.

I am not and have never argued against the "Perception" of time dilation while in relative motion. But I address the only true time dilation which is that asserted to make the traveling trwin younger after his trip.

That is a permanent loss of accumulated time when compared in a common rest feame subsequent to having had relative velocity.

Last edited: Sep 24, 2009
8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Enough said. No need to even read the rest. Billy T believes in magic. In his educated opinion there is no need for a physical cause to have a physical affect - :bugeye:

Absolute lunatic.

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Noodler:

OK so he now tells you one frame may be dilated - i.e. physically ticking slower than another.

Now he tries to confuse you with the insertion about Nothing physically changes "in it's own frame". All that really means is an observer in that frame cannot detect, measure or tell his clock has dilated. It does NOT mean "Nothing" has changed physically as he asserts.

Not detecting a change and there not being a change are two different issues. Don't let him con you.

Absolutely a false statement. If that were true there would be no measureable time difference once relative velocity terminated and clocks were compared in a common rest frame.

The twin paradox would not exist since the twin would not be younger upon return of his trip. He would only appear younger while moving and vice versa for his brother. That time dilation is mere "Perception" which I have properly labeled "Illusion of Motion".

10. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,021
MacM:

1 hour and 45 minutes remain for your apology.

If you want to toss it all in because you're too stubborn to admit a minor point, that's up to you.

11. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
For noodler et. al., I will briefly comment on MacM’s “A&B travel from S towards C” scenario in post 1384:

(1) S & C are separated 0.6light hour in the rest frame of C and both A & B travel at 0.6 C so MacM correctly concludes that observe at C will age one hour while A & B travel from S to him at C.

(2) MacM also is correct that A & B will only age for 48 minutes during the trip from S to C; but he is correct for a false reason he assumes to be true and denies the real reason for their relative youth.

I.e. MacM assumes that all moving clocks, including heart beats and other aging processes, are physically running slower, in the moving* frame, but this is not detectable by A or B as ALL clocks in their frames are going slower.

Standards SR makes no such ad-hoc assumption to explain why the travelers age only 48 minutes. The distance the travelers travel, which is marked off in another frame not theirs, is contracted to only 0.48light hours in their frame. Both this contraction, which MacM has replaced with his ad-hoc assumption of physical change in clock tick rates, and time dilation, which MacM half way accepts (I.e. for frames A & B but not for frame C.), follow MATHEMATICALLY from the two very well confirmed postulates of SR. Thus, in standard SR, space contraction is NOT an ad-hoc assumption, but a derived consequence of two well established facts.

As MacM postulates SR effects are due to a physical change in the moving frame caused by it motion wrt some frame called the CRF, there can be no physical change in the Common Rest Frame itself. This is why he denies the reciprocity of SR effects. MacM’s SR becomes self contradictory whenever there is more than one CRF. For example, this contradiction is exposed when the moving frame, M, was once at rest in frame A and at some other time at rest in frame B as one physical change in M cannot explain the two different Time Dilations, TDma & TDmb. – See post 1382 for definition of this notation, if it is not obvious to you and for fuller discussion of this self contradiction in MacM’s SR.

Here is the summary of post 1382 showing the internal inconsistency of MacM’s version of SR:

(1) TDma is equal to TDmb as caused by a single physical change in frame M.
(2)TDma not equal to TDmb when computed by MacM approved SR procedures as one computation uses M's speed wrt CFRma and the other M's speed wrt CFRmb but in the same calculation procedure.

------------------
* C is also moving wrt to A, which considers itself to be at rest as we all do our own frame, but that is not important as MacM states that movement does not make SR effects - it is only an "illusion of motion."

Standard SR does not have ANY preferred frames (like the CRF) so does not need to go back into ancient history to determine which of two moving frames is the "rest frame."

MacM never explains how the atoms of an atomic clock remember that they were accelerated long ago (or not, if in the rest frame's atomic clock) to now be physically changed. Or how Quantum THEORY, which completely describes these atoms, changes to describe these “physically changed” atoms of the atomic clock in the moving frame.

SUMMARY: MacM's SR is full of nonsense like Quantum Theory is a function of speed, but only in the frame that remembers it is not the CFR, has many self contradictions, claims the existence of a preferred CRF to measure speeds wrt, and has no evidence for the ad-hoc assumption of a "physical change."
None the less MacM thinks 100,000 Ph. D. physicists in the last 100 years all are wrong and those still living must be fools not to see SR the way MacM does, now that he has reviled it to them. (bold misspelling intended.)

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
12. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,810
Such a pity, I was really looking forward to seeing that magic fusion machine of his.

13. ### Billy TUse Sugar Cane Alcohol car FuelValued Senior Member

Messages:
23,198
Yes that would be nice, but I would even settle for his wind machine that was so much better, more efficient and cheaper than all existing ones that it and MacM would "eat their lunch."

14. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,021
I'd like to address MacM's latest scenario according to SR.

This procedure synchronises sets all the clocks to zero at the same time in C's frame, but not in the frame of A or B, as I will show below.

This is a correct conclusion, but it has nothing to do with acceleration. This "test" starts when the clocks are set to zero, after the acceleration period. Therefore, the accelerations are irrelevant to the problem. There is no need to specify a "common rest frame", which is a concept that is not required in relativity.

It is true that A and B accumulated the same amount of time. MacM's statement about time dilation is hard to decode, so let's ignore it and do the problem properly.

Let's denote three sets of coordinates as follows:

Frame C: (x,t)
Frame A: (x', t')
Frame B: (x'', t'')

The three clocks start "accumulating time" (i.e. like a stopwatch starting) when A and B are at the start of the course (positions S). A's speed is 0.6c in the positive x direction, B's speed is 0.6c in the negative x direction (i.e. B's velocity is -0.6c).

Let's look at the coordinates of the relevant events in the C frame coordinates:

A starts his clock: (x,t) = (-0.6 light hours, 0)
B starts his clock: (x,t) = (0.6 light hours, 0)
C starts his clock: (x,t) = (0,0)
A passes C: (x,t) = (0, 1 hour)
B passes C: (x,t) = (0, 1 hour)

Now, let us use the Lorentz transformations of special relativity to calculate the cooordinates of these same events in A's frame:

A starts his clock: (x',t') = (-0.75 light hours, +0.45 hours)
B starts his clock: (x',t') = (0.75 light hours, -0.45 hours)
C starts his clock: (x',t') = (0,0)
A passes C: (x',t) = (-0.75 light hours, +1.25 hours)
B passes C: (x',t) = (-0.75 light hours, +1.25 hours)

Note that according to A's clock, A's clock was started 0.45 hours (or 27 minutes) after C's clock was started. i.e. the starting of A's and C's clocks was not simultaneous in A's frame.

The elapsed time for the trip according to A's clock is: +1.25 hours - (+0.45) hours = 0.8 hours, or 48 minutes.

The "actual" time taken for the trip by B, as observed by A using A's clocks is (1.25 - (-0.45) = 1.7 hours. Therefore, A concluded that B's clocks were running slower than A's clocks during the trip.

Now B's frame:

A starts his clock: (x'',t'') = (-0.75 light hours, -0.45 hours)
B starts his clock: (x'',t'') = (+0.75 light hours, +0.45 hours)
C starts his clock: (x'',t'') = (0,0)
A passes C: (x'',t'') = (+0.75 light hours, +1.25 hours)
B passes C: (x'',t'') = (+0.75 light hours, +1.25 hours)

Note that according to B's clock, B's clock was started 0.45 hours (or 27 minutes) after C's clock was started. i.e. the starting of B's and C's clocks was not simultaneous in B's frame.

The elapsed time for the trip according to B's clock is: +1.25 hours - (+0.45) hours = 0.8 hours, or 48 minutes.

The "actual" time taken for the trip by A, as observed by B using B's clock is (1.25 - (-0.45) = 1.7 hours. Therefore, B concluded that A's clocks were running slower than B's clocks during the trip.

One more point: let's look at the ORDER of events here.

In C's frame, all three clocks were started at t=0 - i.e. simultaneously.
In A's frame, the clocks were started at intervals of 27 minutes: first B's clock, then C's, then A's.
In B's frame, the clocks were started at intervals of 27 minutes: first A's clock, then C's, then B's.

15. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
32,021
Time is up. MacM has not apologised. Thread closed.

Moderator note:

MacM may NOT post ANYTHING about relativity on sciforums until I receive his apology as specified below. He may continue to post on other topics. Posting on relativity prior to an apology being received by me will result in a temporary suspension from sciforums.

The required apology is as follows:

MacM will acknowledge that the two statements in the following text are compatible and not inconsistent:

Moreover, MacM will acknowledge that I initially posted exactly this information in post #1364 of the current thread.

A small matter, surely. Let us see if MacM's ego can bend.