relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by apolo, Feb 17, 2003.

  1. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    And finally from A:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Excellent job Janus 58

    It's a pity that Mac won't appreciate the calculations you have done, because if he does, then thre goes his precious little theory. He will agrue that whil the graphics are good, the formula's you based them on are ultimately wrong. Pity for that.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Graphics

    Janus,

    Good job indeed. And as usual ryans and some others misjudge me.

    With your permission I would like to transfer your graphics over to UniKEF where members can get a better grasp of the subject.

    I will post it in contrast with my entries for the 3 Clock Problem.

    I hereby conceed the mathematics but I still don't accept the theory. I still believe that eventually something like the link I posted will be found to be the answer.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Re: Graphics

    Originally posted by MacM
    Good job indeed. And as usual ryans and some others misjudge me.
    LMFAO... he misjudged you? You did exactly what he said you would "He will agrue that whil the graphics are good, the formula's you based them on are ultimately wrong."
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    He did indeed

    Persol,

    He did indeed but he still misjudged me in that he would not expect me to be willing to put mathematical proof that opposes what I have been saying on my own site and show that mathematically at least I have been corrected.

    Everything mathematical, as you should know, is not reality however.
     
  9. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    he would not expect me to be willing to put mathematical proof that opposes what I have been saying on my own site and show that mathematically at least I have been corrected.
    You are once again putting words into another person's mouth.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Any Comment

    ryan,

    Any comment?
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Retraction

    Janus58,

    Sorry but in watching your graphics longer and making a drawing of my own of the stopped test view, I must until an acceptable explanation can be provided, conclude your graphics do not show actual times of the test.

    We have and have had no disagreement of clock "C"s view.

    C = 10
    B = 6.61
    A = 8.66

    Now watching the graphs for example "B"s view, you need a seperate clock C for A and for B. Call them Ca and Cb. When C stops B after C= 10, B = 6.61, at that moment B should read clock C as 4.37 because B ran for only 6.61 hours and was seeing C run at 0.661 times its rate or .661 x 6.61 = 4.37 but your clock in the graphics continues to run for A to reach 8.86 and c = 10.

    The same is true for A's view. If you had seperate clock C's and stopped A at 8.66 from C's C=10 view then A should see C reading 7.5 because 8.66 x 0.866 = 7.5.

    I still get multiple readings. What am I missing.?
     
  12. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    What did I say? You don't need to be phycic Mac to predict your response to perfectly valid physical explanations which go against beloved UniKEF theory. You know what, I hope your theory does get off the ground becaause if it becomes a plausible theory (what ever it is, I still don't know that), I will spend my waking life attacking the assumptions it is based on(as every theory is based on assumptions), which shouldn't be hard since you do not understand even trivial mathematics. Give me one of the assumptions of your theory Mac.
     
  13. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    First principles

    Hi MacM,

    "I hereby conceed the mathematics but I still don't accept the theory. I still believe that eventually something like the link I posted will be found to be the answer."

    Ok, you don't agree with the theory, let's have a look then:

    1) Do you agree that the speed of light is constant for every observer ?
    2) Do you believe that there is a mathematical construct labelled "inertial frame" which allows us to say at least something mathematically about motion ?

    Now read the text below that matches your personal answers:

    a) Yes / Yes

    Congratulations. You have just invented the theory of special relativity. You have just solved your three clock problem in a mathematical consistent framework, the reply given by many before me.

    b) No / Yes

    Congratulations. You have essentially invented the theory of classical mechanics. You have just solved your three clock problem in a mathematical consistent framework: there is no time dilatation, length contraction, ...

    c) All others

    If you refuse to allow mathematics to enter well then we have a problem ... (answer below)

    "Everything mathematical, as you should know, is not reality however."

    ... but scientific. I assume you believe in logical reasoning, well, that is (boolean) mathematics already. Maths is a tool to build objective and logically consistent reasonings, starting from a few very basic assumptions. If you acknowledge the existence of real numbers, that you can add/subtract/multiply and divide them, then basically you know all the maths you need for special relativity; instead of using the real numbers R, you use 4 real numbers at the same time (R<sup>4</sup>).

    Maths does not describe reality, it is tool to describe the logical reasonings about reality.

    I've put it all very simple, but I think it is the core thought behind physics and relativity.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  14. robot87 Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    if the ship stayed sill and the earth moved u would feel no G's and the people on earth would feel quite a bit
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Damnit

    ryan,


    ANS: Damnit ryan, this discussion has nothing to do with UniKEF. It is a discussion regarding views of Relativity.



    ANS: Your pathetic attempt to talk something into becoming a fact doesn't work. Not using calculus is not the same as being able or unable to do "trival" mathematics. And as I have said I have had some calculus but it is very limited - i.e I know how to get from the volume of a sphere to the surface of a sphere. Very basic stuff.


    [/quoteGive me one of the assumptions of your theory Mac[/QUOTE]



    ANS: No. This discussion is about Relativity. Once it is resolved, then perhaps. In fact "Yes" once I see there is an actual willingness to cooporate in useful discussion on the issue and not casting false irrelevant enuendo.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    G's

    robot87,


    ANS: You mistake the issue. Neither observer feels G's during this period. It is a period of linear velocity both feel at rest.
     
  17. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    Re: Retraction

    If you watch the clocks closely, you will note that C does read the correct values from the perspective of A or B when each respective clock is stopped. (Actually, the Exact moment occurs between frames.) But this not mean that C will stop at these times according to A or B. C can only stop when it is aligned with both the red and Blue Buoys, and this is true from all of the clocks Viewpoints. The only viewpoint from which all three events occur at the same instant (A, B and C stop), is the frame of C.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think we agree

    Janus58,

    I think we agree with your reply. I saw that at the moment A and B stopped C appeared to be about correct according to what I have been saying.

    (Maybe you could add a stop/control button at each point).

    Having said that I think we still disagree as to the signifigance of these readings. I am working on another response but won't have time to complete it this morning.

    I am very pleased right now because I find we are making progress for a change by having a decent conversation.

    Thanks.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Janus58:

    Very nice. Thanks for making such an effort.


    MacM:

    A couple of posts ago, I was very disappointed to see you reverting back to a position which completely ignores the relativity of simultaneity, which I had taken so much time and effort to explain to you earlier.

    Basically, if you dispute Janus58's graphics, you are also throwing away my explanation. The combined evidence is right in front of you. Why not open your eyes and actually take a look at it? What more is required to convince you that the relativistic explanation is correct?
     
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Not entirely.

    James R.,

    Not entirely. If you look at his response to that I am in agreement in the final details but I do see a question I am working on that presentation.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Ref:First Principles

    Crisp,



    ANS: I appreciate the tone you have here but if you will note, I have had to withdraw slightly in that I find I still have a question on this issue. I can't address your question until it is resolved in my mind.


    Perhaps you would be willing to try and reconcile this issue. I hope so.

    ***************************** Question


    1 - We all agree on the view from clock "C".

    C = 10
    B = 6.61
    A = 8.66

    2 - I agree with the consistancy of Janus58 and James R's presentation of the mathematics.

    3 - I believe I still disagree that the math presented represents what I have been calling the view of other clocks by each clock.

    That is right now it appears that both sides are right. Let me explain.

    From B's view it is running normally but it is watching C run at only 0.661 (66.1%) of its rate.

    Yes or No.

    That being the case and since C controls the run time of B in terms of its reading or the test is terminated by C shutting off clocks when ITS view is that C=10.

    That happens from B's vantage point when it has accumulated
    6.61 hours recorded on its clock.

    During those 6.61 hours B watches C's time slowly accumulate and at the point of test termination clock C in B's view will have only reached 4.37 hours. This is the point in the graphics that clock B time stops moving.

    The same analysis from A's vantage point has A believing that C has accumulated 7.5 hours.

    Now for my table:

    ..............................Viewed Time As
    Obs.................A..................B.................C
    A...................8.66............6.61..............7.50
    B...................8.66............6.61..............4.37
    C...................8.66............6.61............10.00

    What am I missing. You now have A & B in agreement but not the view of C?
     
  22. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    Re: I think we agree

    I played around with the idea of having each animation Pause at the point where each clock stopped. The problem is that I would have had to add a lot more frames to the animation in order to catch each point during a frame and not have it occur in between frames. This would have made the Animations much larger than would have been practical for posting.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    MacM:

    What you are missing, and what you have been missing the whole time is the <b>relativity of simultaneity</b>. I have explained this many times now.

    Go and find yourself a book on special relativity and read up on the relativity of simultaneity. Ay first year college physics textbook will have a chapter which explains it very well.
     

Share This Page