# relativity

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

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

Messages:
31,288
MacM:

<i>I still say such variable clock rates means Relativity must be observational and not physical reality.</i>

What have I told you about observation vs. physical reality, MacM?

If you think they are distinguishable, answer this question for me:

<b>Please provide one test I can perform on any property of any object which will allow me to tell the difference between the "real" value of that property and its "observational" value.</b>

A single example should be fine. Have you got one?

<i>Physical clocks cannot posses different rates of time simultaneously and this rate view eliminates (I believe) your simultaneity arguement.</i>

That view is based on nothing. It is based on your vague feeling that the "vibe" just isn't right for you. You cannot and have not backed it up with anything of substance. It has been shown to you many times that relativity says the exact opposite. You have not shown any flaws in the relativistic explanation of time dilation.

Wake up, MacM. Now is the time to start learning something and give up the fantasy physics.

3. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Thanks

ryans,

ANS: But the issue is no longer time displayed over some test period but the phenomena of relavistic clock rates.

I know your answer would be "Thats Relativity" but for that reason my answer must remain the same. "Thats observational and not physical reality since the clocks can't have multiple time rates at the same time".

No need to continue the arguement unless you have a better explanation, that one doesn't do the job. That isn't pointed at you, it is pointed at Relativity.

Thanks again.

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

Messages:
31,288
See what I mean?

How can we possibly argue with you, MacM, when your entire argument is based on "the vibe"?

"Oh, relativity just doesn't feel right to me!"
"But look at all these experiments which show it is correct..."
"They don't matter. I still don't believe it."
"Why not."
"Because it doesn't make sense to me."
"Have you bothered trying to learn about it?"
"No, I'm not interested. I just know it's wrong."

MacM, it doesn't seem right to me that footballs are bigger than tennis balls. Maybe that means they really aren't. It doesn't seem right to me that unicorns don't exist, so I guess they do. It doesn't seem right to me that I have to pay tax, so maybe I should just stop. Why be concerned with <b>reality</b>?

7. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995

The decay rate of muons in cosmi showers!!!!

8. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
here's another one

The design of drift tubes in linear accelerators!!!!!

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Final Question

James R.,

As I have said in the earlier post this would be my final question on this topic. I appreciate you taking time to once more address it.

ANS: Good question. I will indeed give that some tought.

ANS: Not exactly correct. It has nothing to do with me but logic and reason. Supported by acceptance of viable alternative views.

ANS: Unless there is a viable answer other than "That is what Relativity says" I believe that in fact I have given substative doubt
proof certainly is another matter.

ANS: As you might guess I suspect that it is Relativity that is fantasy. And I have learned something. that the general scientific community cannot supply the answer I am looking for.

As far as "Learning Something" I think that is more inline with "Conform". I just don't see anything that I would want to confrom to.

Thanks for your time in any case. I do hope you will try to explain how "Simultaneity" can alter the multiple simultaneous clock rates required.

10. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
How about conforming to reality Mac.

11. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
See

ryans,

ANS: See we still disagree.