The bogus arguement put forth by James R, Janus, et al, regarding simultaneity is this. Since A and B are moving in opposite directions under exact same conditions whatever affects motion has on their clocks is symmetrical; that includes shifts in simultaneity. Simultainity can be calculated and test start and stop times can be controlled so as to cause them to occur simutaneously in a universal view. A, B and even C will disagree that they started and stopped the test simultaneously but that is irrelevant. What is relavant is that they would be universally coordinated and once that is done it becomes absolutely clear that the affects of motion advocated by SRT do not remain consistant and it mandates different accumulated times for the same physical clocks. The reality is that the clocks will not have the same numbers but unlike SRT the numbers they do have are based on actual motion universally and not the false assumptions of SRT of declaring one at rest and arbitrarily claiming the other has all motion comprising the collective relative veloicty. That is why in the case given the 0.866c fails to produce the gamma = 2 predicted by SRT between A and B. The failure of reciprocity between A and B is further indication of the flawed methodology. I did not pursue reciprocity between (A, B) and C but according to SRT standards one should also anticipate that where A and B run slower than C (which is actually supported by physical data) that C should also run slower than A and B (which is not supported by data).
This is vaguely correct. MacM has trouble with the relativity of simultaneity. MacM has never demonstrated how this might be done, so this is an empty claim. A relative velocityo of 0.866c produces by definition a gamma of 2. That's how gamma is defined. MacM can't actually explain his supposed "failure of reciprocity" in any logical or mathematical manner.
Hi everyone. As can be seen from my post count, I am new to this forum. Is the statement that two observers may not agree on two events having occured simultaneously purely a consequence of the different amounts of time light takes to travel from the event to the observer? If this is so, can we not just define "simultaneous" as two events occuring at the same time relative to the loci equidistant to the two events, and hence discard the entire problem of simultaneity? Also, what is "reciprocity"? Is it something like if A views B as 2A, B would view A as 0.5 B?
No. The time for light to propagate can be ignored (or factored out). Once we do that, we still find that simultaneity is relative. Here is a brief primer on relativity. Ask MacM. Don't expect a meaningful answer, though. (On second thought, don't ask. Read some of the things in the link above, instead.)
Yes. "Reciprocity" as MacM imagines it is completely nonexistent. Not only is he tilting at windmills, the windmills don't even exist.
I wonder why all the self-appointed know-it-alls are attracted to SciFi? Funny how certain members here think attacking a person or an idea gives credance to their pet view. It would be more impressive if they could merely respond to the physics challenge. FYI: I get these from all over the world and not merely from crackpots. ****************************************************** From: "Dhanjal, Sutinder S" <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.com> To: <lmccoin@elp.rr.com> Subject: gravity theory Date: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 12:59 PM Sir, You have great ideas, and I have been following the push theory for a while now. I have been trying to think how it can explain the "Lagrange" points L1 - L5 etc in orbital mechanics. Do you have some insight? Keep up the good work Sutinder S Dhanjal Physicist and Engineer ************************************************** So up yours.
No, I just doubt you get stuff like that from non-crackpots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Unless the man is lying he is a physicist. Of course you have always called anybody that disagrees with your view a crackpot regardless of their intelligence, education, experience and achievements.
Crackpots are people who presume to lay down the law about relativity when they obviously know next to nothing about it, and don't understand what little they have read on the subject. Of course, those people will disagree with me, since I understand it.
I hope you realize that this has nothing to do with the gentleman's e-mail since no relativity issues were raised and he signed off as a physicist. Care to try staying on point regarding my communications with the world beyond SciFi? You may understand the theory but you certainly do not understand physical reality. There seems to be a differance.
Swallow hard James R, what is irrelevant was your interjection of "Crackpots" being people discussing relativity without understanding it, when the e-mail had nothing to do with relativity. It is you that are irrelevant. It's only purpose was to insure vistitor readers were not going to be mislead by funkstar's and SL's false innuendo's attached to my name and posts (yours too I might add).
I think your mentioning the email was a failed attempt to boost your credibility. BTW, I don't know any real physicist or engineer who signs their emails with "Physicist and Engineer".
The only thing failed here is your attempt to demean my credability. Now perhaps you do. You might note it appears to be from India I think.
The fact that obervers have a "different meaning" does not mean that theyu cannot understand the emaning that Prosoothus uses when he uses the phrase "specific moment". The observes can understand what Prosioothus uis saying don't they? Your faqllacy is assuming that the observer's clocks will be different fronm the iother's, which you cannot demonstrated and you only have sonme SRT to use supporting yoru position. Are you sayinvg tay the observers don't have access to dissident points of view? Are the observers on the moving frames technically ignorant, uneducated, not privy to exchanges beween yourself and MacM? No James R, you are wrong. Prosoothus makes the satement "specific moment" . He isn't referring to the numbers on the clock. He is referring to the same monment, right now. Like the moon at this moment is orbiting the southerly skys in my world, at this very moment. I care less what clocks or timing mechanism are used, but at this very moment the universe in going through all it is going trough right now. Do you understand what I am saying? I am saying that whatever your concept of what the clocks are doing and even assuming that the clock rates are different for different observers, right now is the same for both of them whether their clocks agree with each other or not. James R, all you are saying is that when the observers on A and B inertial frames assume their speed at rest they conclude one thing. If the assume their speed is elevated they assume another. Neither of them actually are able tio determine anything about their motion other than the measured relative motion of their respective frames (or so says SRT). So whatever they have whizzing throiugh their minds as they apply speciaql relativity theory to a purely conjectured condition, the physical proof of the matter has not been and cannot be demonstrated. The poor dumb observers who actually believe that their clcok rates differ when they conjecture the clcock rates as different need some serious mental reconstruction assistance. The only reality you can supply to this question is that there are no SRT prohibitions to observers conjecturing anything! Period. No one has ever heard you say that if A and B inertial frames are moving realtive to each other at some velocity xc where 0 <= x < c, that if both observers throughout the entire motion history from the instant they were accelerated until they passed each other, when the mutual bows of the inertial frame ships passed the plane of the other's bow, moving oppostiely to each other, that then the periodic conjectures of the observers before the bows were both instantaneoulsy colocated on the same plane, will not be supported by the instantaneous printout of the commpletely maintained clock rate history of both reference frames. If the A and B frames were both accelerated to a speed .433c wrt Ve, the earth frame, and this was the speed the frames used through out the test while montoring and recording their clock rates, and maintained this speed that the time rate of ticks, both will reflect other than the conjectures and assumptions of the observers using an equivalnce of inertial frame postuilate. In other words the numbers of both will be the same throughout, neither will reflect one slowing the other sped up. The mental conjectures of the observers is insignificant to any of the discussion. Both A and B frames broadcasting their trick rate with 1 second pulses will be read by the other frame as 1 second pulses and the same as that which they broadcast to the other frame. All you have is your finger pointing to a paragraph written by a dead man, popuilarized as the last thing in mental acuity, who long since dead and who cannot now be questioned as to the propriety of hios statements. This is your science james R. You mentioned in another thread that I, Geistkiesel, didn't like you. Well you were wrong. Dislike and hatred are pathological states of mind and, body and soul and I don't suffer the dislike of persons any more than I do dislike cockaroaches. I do not and cannot respect many people, but this is a different matter. Your religious attachement to SRT is just one aspect of adimininshed sense of respect I have for you, your inability to reason is another, your shameful and unprofessional conduct toward some who oppose you is another, your inabilithy and conscious decsison to seek other than the truth is another, and there are more. Geistkiesel
My only disagreement with your post is that in the final analysis it is the accumulated time on the clocks which dictate the actual motion that was involved. What observers assume has no bearing on the clocks. And the conjecture that they are at rest and the other has all motion will not be supported physically. (Unless by the 1 in several trillion odds were that that was the actual case). But then only ONE observer will be correct the other will have a long over due lesson regarding the physical universe and his belief in SRT since his antricipated reciproicty with "A" will not be demonstrated..
Perhaps I am not as intelligent as I like to think...after all these years, I still find myself attempting to argue with Mr. McCoin and UniKEF...You think I would learn the futility of this... - KitNyx
