The Death of Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Prosoothus, Jun 19, 2005.

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


    Right. I am trying to prod MacM into thinking. I'm not getting my hopes up, though.

    The evidence for Einstein's relativity is overwhelming. The evidence for MacM's wacky wacky physics is zero. And in fact MacM's physics is inconsistent with actual observations and experiments, so while relativity might not be proven, MacM's wacky physics is definitely disproved.

    It passes the time...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Yes, there have been a lot of experiments, but they all seem to be very similar in nature. If you can point to even one experiment that proves without a doubt that either length contraction or reciprocity, by all means do it. I realize there are many experiments that use these concepts to explain the results, but like I've said - they can be explained just using actual time dilation as far as I've actually looked into it.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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


    You're right, of course. I said quite some time ago on this forum that I am not aware of any direct tests of length contraction. I won't use the term "reciprocity" here since MacM's confused notion of what that means in no way accords with any actual part of the theory as I understand it.

    Of course, if length contraction and "reciprocity" do not in fact exist, then the whole of relativity, special and general, must be thrown out. So far, though, nobody has any evidence to show that these things do not exist. Nor do they have any suitable theory which lacks those concepts and yet which still agrees with all the experimental evidence which does support relativity.

    The fact is: ALL the experimental results and observations we have, from fields as disparate as particle physics, solid state physics, astrophysics and so on, are consistent with the general theory of relativity. Therefore, until something better comes along, it is out current best guess at how the universe works. All science is provisional, and can be overturned by new evidence. No such evidence yet exists to require the replacement of relativity - except in the known areas where a quantum theory is obviously required, and real physicists around the world are already hard at work on that.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    James R,
    James R, In general muons are created at a spectrum of altitudes, so when the claim is that muon's time dilation is responsible for extending the 1/2 lifetime of muons, how do you separate the time dilated surviors and the newly created muons at ever lower altitudes?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. Aer Registered Senior Member

    Yes, I agree with you. When refering to excepted physics, I always treat Special and General Relativity as the current model. But this doesn't mean I won't entertain other models for the sake of argument.
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Enough already James R. Your continued assertions that I am confused on this issue ignores the facts.

    As can be seen in the following "my" version of reciproicty is the correct version. A runs slower than B and B runs slower than A.


    Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered

    It is self-evident to anyone willing to look.

    Given tr = tick rate then t * tr = d/v and to claim spatial length contraction is to ignore the known emperical evidence supporting time time dilation or tick rate change of a moving clock.

    It is not necessary to have the correct answer to show the falicy of the SRT view.

    Hog wash. Your assumption that SR being a integral part of GR that it must also be valid since GR appears valid is ignorant. To the contrary the obvious falicies of SR should tell you there is something very wrong with GR.

    It may be a good mathematical model but it simply does not justify the assumptions being made regarding SR or the true nature of the universe physically.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Muons are not created lower than a certain altitude, because the cosmic rays which create them cannot penetrate the atmosphere far enough. If you like, consider the lowest altitude at which a muon can be created by a cosmic ray. Even at that altitude, the muon doesn't have time to reach the ground before decaying (on average), without time dilation.

    It's a simple enough analysis.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I have no argument with's quote.

    What does this mean? Please explain.

    Right. So, can you show any flaw in SRT? No, you can't.

    Do you disagree that SR is a special case of GR now?

    What obvious fallacies?
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member


    You got to be kidding.

    tr = tick rate.

    t * tr = d / v

    It couldn't be more clear.

    Given a (d)istance of 30 miles
    Given a (v)elocity of 60 Mph
    Given two (t)ick (r)ates ~ tr

    A = 1.0
    B = 0.5

    Those clocks would compute the folloiwng times:

    For A: t * 1.0 = 30 / 60 = 0.5 hours or 30 minutes.

    For B: t * 0.5 = 30 / 60 = 0.25 hours or 15 minutes.

    Both had the same velocity and traveled the SAME DISTANCE but B recorded the trip as taking half as long. Distance didn't change simply because he didn't know his clock was ticking slow.

    Same for two clocks in space. One at rest and one in motion at 0.866c. If the one at rest has a tick rate arbitrarily set as 1.0 the other with the motion has a tick rate of 0.5.

    Distance doesn't change just because the moving ship records less time.

    Well, actually I have many times. Your refusal to address the issues doesn't alter that.

    Where did I say that? I said your assumptions that SR must be correct because you believe GR to be correct is an ignorant position. Falsification of SR in contrast must make GR merely a useful mathematical tool that does not express physical realities of the universe when it comes to assumptions made for SR.

    You cannot justify these kinds of statements until you address the t = d/v issue above. Until then your precious SRT is invalidated.
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2005
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Ok then, but I'm sure I'll be wasting my time.

    Let A be "at rest" (on Earth, say). Let B travel at 0.866c away from A, for a distance of 1 light year, as measured by A.

    A's frame of reference:

    B travels 1 light year according to A. A is stationary.
    The trip takes 1/0.866 = 1.15 years, according to A.
    During the trip, B's clock runs slow by a factor of 2, according to A.
    Therefore, at the end of the trip, B's clock should read 0.577 years (half of 1.15).

    B's frame of reference:

    A travels 0.5 light years according to B, since the distance is length contracted in B's frame.
    The trip takes 0.5/0.866 = 0.577 years, according to B.
    During the trip, A's clock runs slow by a factor of 2, according to B.

    At this point, notice that the length contraction in B's frame is what makes the predictions of the time taken by B's clock the same for both observers. If length contraction did not exist, but time dilation did, then each observer would predict a different elapsed time on B's clock, which is obvious nonsense. So, it is length contraction + time dilation which makes relativity consistent. You can't have one without the other.

    "But wait!", you say, "According to B, in relativity, A's clock runs slower than B's, so how can A and B also agree on the elapsed time on A's clock? Relativity must be false! B should see A's clock as having LESS elapsed time than B's clock, right?"

    The solution to this is, as usual, that we ignored the relativity of simultaneity. In the timing, we assumed that when B passed A, both clocks were set to zero, and when B reached 1 light year, as measured by A, both clocks were stopped simultaneously according to A. But relativity tells us that the clocks did not stop simultaneously from B's point of view, because simultaneity is relative. In fact, B's clock stopped BEFORE A's clock, according to B, and BOTH observers agree that A stopped at a reading of 1.15 years.

    What does this show?

    It shows that unless you have time dilation AND length contraction AND the relativity of simultaneity, relativity doesn't work. Disprove any one of these things and relativity dies. But if you want to work within the theory of relativity to make predictions, you can't pick and choose - either you use the WHOLE theory, or don't bother. And you'd better make sure you understand the WHOLE theory before you try to criticise it, or you'll make some stupid mistakes and draw some wrong conclusions.

    Now, the fact is, MacM, you can't DISPROVE time dilation. In fact, you admit it exists, but only "one way" you say. Well, one way doesn't produce a coherent theory. Either time dilation is bunk or we need something else (i.e. length contraction and relativity of simultaneity) to make the theory self-consistent.

    You can't DISPROVE length contraction either - you have no experimental evidence that it DOES NOT occur. Same goes for the relativity of simultaneity.

    So, you're an empty vessel making a lot of noise. You can't disprove relativity. You don't understand the theory well enough even to know what it predicts. And you have no viable alternative to offer. Therefore, relativity remains our best theory right now, and you have a lot of work to do.

    Now, I'm sure you'll whinge and probably not respond to this post except to say I am citing "rhetoric" and not "addressing the issues". The fact is, though, you don't reply because you know you have no coherent physical arguments to make.
  14. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    If Mac runs true to form, he'll now say that the stopping of the clocks was in fact physically simultaneous, even if observers in other frames don't "see" it as simultaneous.

    He will again present the assertion that SR's failure of simultaneity is a perception due to signal delays, and that the clocks *really did stop simultaneously*.

    And yet, he will still claim that he's not assuming absolute simultaneity... go figure?
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Here is where you screw up. You calculate a time dilation for clock B; which happens to be physical and emperically demonstrated and want to attach a stipulation "According to "A" to it.

    Physics is not about perceptions of according to different views. B either physically dilates or it doesn't.

    We both agree it physically does. So lets start there.

    With the known condition that B's clock runs slow by a factor of two the entire case become completely consistant and understandable without the duplicitity created by you and SRT ignoring B's true tick rate and then claiming spatial length contraction to make it all work out.

    With an absolute motion view (consistant with observation and emperical data) B physically dilates and it will record only 0.577 yrs for the trip of 1 lyr at the 0.866c velocity.

    Without any change of distance from B's perspective it is also consistant that A makes the same 1 lyr trip in 1.15 years at 0.866c "Apparent" velocity since it didn't dilate because it really has no motion.

    You cannot ignore the tick rate reality of B to make unsupported claims about length contraction for A. You stop talking physics at that point and interject illusions or perceptions based on ignoring known and relavistically calculated facts for B. Further you have not excluded the alternative illusion that B merely concludes he has traveled at twice the velocity covering the same distance in one half the time.

    Neither illusion need be considered physical reality since the trip times recorded are consistant with a fixed distance, common velocity view, with only the tick rate dilated for the clock in actual motion.

    False. Knowing moving clocks dilate relativity predicts the very differential in clock readings and the physical results are consistant with a fixed distance with one clock dilated due to actual motion and one not because relative velocity is not necessarily actual motion.

    Here you go again claiming I have ignored simultaneity. I have'nt. You have ignored the relavistic calculation based on actual motion and try to pull the typical circle jerk of SRT by switching actual tick rates for standard rates because they are not sensed by the moving observer and then throw in the magic hammer claiming relativity of simultaneity shome how makes it all well.

    If B's clock is ticking slower than A then you must continue to calculate all trip views with that physical fact accounted for. Don't use it here and drop it there.

    You cannot count relativity of simultaneity because it consists of nothing more than information delay compounded by the time dilation. Which is nothing more than offset displayed time accumulated readings Calculating both affects I could very well simply reset my clock and both would be synchroized momentarily. B would of course continue to lose time relative to A but if I could calibrate it's tick rate both clocks can be made tick for tick and be absolutely synchronized. It is true that both cannot view the other clock as synchronized but in absolute terms they are. Accounting for each none of your circle jerk becomes required to understand the entire cycle and it is consistant with emperical observations.

    Your reciproicty above is not.

    It shows you have over complicated the universe by making an over simplified view of physical affects of motion.

    Well then start with the fact that time dilation is a recorded fact and if reciprocity were fact none could ever have been recorded. So I guess SRT fails. But then you find it easy to disregard this fact even though you have no example of reciprocity to cite and have absolutely no way of explaining how it could be physically possible.

    Seems to me on balance my view is far more correct and better supported than yours.

    False. See above.

    Properly accounting for time dilation prohibits length contraction. You are mistaken regarding proofs.

    Here you go taking you best arguement. That is to cast false innuendo and advocate a bowl of spaggetti as a requirement to make a straight line. O'Razor rolls over.

    Once again you have proven yourself wrong. Doesn't that get old?
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2005
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Told you!
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Only partially correct here but go figure yourself.

    Do you not assert length contraction where none has ever been observed.

    Do you not advocate reciprocity when none has ever been observed (and even worse is physical nonsense which you simply cannot provide a process capable of achieving such results)

    Do you not form this bowl of spaggetti in the first instance by subsequently ignoring your own stated physical (and demonstrated emperically) fact of time dilation to then create the "Length Must Have Contracted" assumption?.

    Absolute concepts may not be observable but they at least produce results consistant with all observations and prohibit those claims which your view makes which are not observered or supported.

    I suggest that scientifically on the balance this puts the absolute view well ahead of SRT.
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    I don't see "Told You" as much of a physics rebuttal of my presentation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    If A and B both launch a rocket towards each other when they stop their own clock, and we assume that the rockets are going the same speed, then will the rockets meet at the mid-point between A and B or closer to A than B?
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    In that case, we need to know what is special about A's frame which makes A NOT dilate. The only way B can "absolutely" dilate is if A is absolutely stationary.

    But you have never managed to show that ANYTHING is absolutely stationary. Relativity is a much neater theory, in that it doesn't regard any frame as special - all frames are treated the same way. And since you have never been able to show that one frame is special, it seems relativity has the upper hand.

    I agree completely.

    So, can you show absolute motion? No, you can't. Because showing absolute motion requires that you establish absolute rest, and you have never managed to do that. Instead, you Texas Two Step around the issue and pretend that whichever frame takes your fancy at the time is absolutely stationary. The absolutely stationary frame is not really absolute at all - it's just MacM's currently preferred frame, and it changes from one moment to the next.

    Then let's talk about the "tick rate reality". First, please establish why A's tick rate is an absolute standard by which all other tick rates must be measured. You know you can't.

    On the contrary, it is YOU who is inserting fantasies of absolute frames which do not exist into the mix. They aren't needed, they can't be proven, and they treat some frames as arbitrarily "special" when there is no evidence they are.

    Do you disagree that velocity is "reciprocal"? My assumption is that if A sees B travelling at speed v, then B sees A travelling at speed v in the opposite direction. What is the wacky MacM version of physics?

    If you could cope with more than one reference frame, you'd see there is no problem with different observers having different views. But you only believe in one frame - the convenient "whichever frame MacM prefers at the time" absolute frame.

    It has nothing to do with information delay, as I have attempted to explain to you hundreds of times before. Your memory is really very poor.
  21. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Here are some absolutes, find a flaw and point it out, besides using some SRT echo, if you are able.

    Can you defeat these with physics?

    Or do we get more condescension, holier than thou retorts. Just once I would like to see a real analysis of physics in a post of yours.

    The three lines in the upper and lower part of the figure are the same line moved to the right. defeat this on the physics if you can. It is the simplest of absolute reference frames that can be operated within a closed cavity in deep space, to determine direction and absolute speed.
    The trajectories of the photons are invariant located in space. The trajectories do not drift, they are zero velocity.Light motion is isotropic and moves with a constant velocity.

    In the first figure the light is moving orthogonal to the motion of the reference frame, remember this.

    If you see the trajectories moving with the reference frame then you see added momentum impulses that add to the velocity of the speed of light making the speed of light > 3x10,<sup>5</sup> km/sec.

    Do you see the light trajectories moving?
    Light motion is indenpendent of the motion of the source the light. Remember this it is important in the scrutiny of the physics represented.

    Howe to read: The light starts at t0, moves upoward to t1 then reflects down to t2.OK?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Here a single frame of reference detects its intrinsic speed in deep space; another simple contradiction of special relativity theory.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    The only thing special about A is that it has less absolute motion relative to the common rest frame of both A and B. You mis-state the problem and my post. I have never said A is special and does not dilate. If it has accelerated it does dilate. It simply dilates less than B because it accelerated less and has less absolute relative velocity.

    Absolute nonsense. Don't pretend to understand and make statements which are so grossly false and uninformed. A and B both dilate in proportion to their respective absolute relative velocities. The one with the greatest velocity will have the most dilation and the differance in their dilations is the resulting dilation factor between them.

    That is why when A and B are accelerated to 0.577c in opposite directions from a common rest frame C, they each dilate equally and hence have no time dilation between them even though there is relative velocity. The dilation only becomes apparent when then viewed from the original rest frames POV and it is seen that both have mutually dilated.

    Nobody has ever said it was or that it needs to be. You are completely lost and off base.


    It seems you have not been listening.

    Nope and have no need to since nothing I have said has ever been based on absolute rest, nor some absolute value of motion. That is why it is referred to as "Absolute Relative Velocity".

    Yes it would and it is fortunate indeed that there is no requirement to do so.

    Please don't steal my phrases and then make false statements using them.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Unlike SR where YOU arbitrarily select who is at rest as you fancy, I never claim anyone as at rest that has accelerated. Funny you never noticed that. Just how wrong can one person be and then come on like a teacher making such inapplicable statements.

    Your putting words into my mouth do not make them my words. I have made it clear that vewing from a third frame exposes the true nature of relativity. I have not said you can arbitrarily select the third frame. I have in fact said the correct third frame is the initial common frame of rest between the two clocks.

    In gendankins this poses no problem but in reality it may not be known or even knowable in cases of two objects with relative velocity.

    Nope and never said I could nor is there any need to. Just where do you get off trying to turn Absolute Relative Velocity into Absolute Velocity. They are just as different as Absolute Relative Velocity is from Relative Velocity.

    You are mixing frames.

    You are still talking about something totally unrelated to my presentation or view. I'm sure you know that but think it is an easy confusion factor to exploit.

    I certainly have no objection to saying A sees B and B sees A. For that is a physical fact. But when it comes to relativity and emperical data, the only conclusion that is supported is that what ones sees is not what counts. What counts is what is.

    In Macs wacky world of physics if I say A accelerates to -0.2c and B accelerates to 0.6c that the relative velocity of 0.714c (assuming the bogus velocity addition only to avoid your further innuendo); NEITHER is at rest and relative velocity tells you nothing about the affect of motion on tick rate.

    Tick rate will be shown to be a value which correctly computes and considers the magnitude of the respective gammas generated by the absolute relative velocity of each individual clock.

    In this case B will be dilated by a gamma = 1.25 / 1.0206 = 1.2247. NOT by a gamma = 1.4286 due to relative velocity and which becomes reversable according to SRT. Such physical attributes ARE NOT REVERSABLE. You are being foolish.

    I cope with multiple frames better than you because my view matches what is shown by GPS and your view cannot produce any evidence, nor give any physical reasoning to be able to produce reciprocity.

    Once again for the 400th time. We are not talking perception or views here we are talking physical realities of motion and physical realities of actual accumulated times by clocks. You can't seem to learn the differance.

    An ABSOLUTE gabrage and false statement.

    Your innuendo and interjection of a simultaneity issue does nothing to further your rebuttal attempt.
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2005
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Let me see if I have you right. Correct the following, if I make any mistakes.

    Suppose I launch two spaceships, A and B, from Earth E. A is launched at 0.866c in one direction. B is launched at 0.866c in the opposite direction.

    According to you, E's clock is undilated.
    A and B's clocks are both dilated by a factor of 2, and so run at the same rate as each other, but half as fast as E's clock.
    A and B will always agree on the times on their clocks.
    A and B see E's clock as running FASTER than theirs. E sees A and B's clocks as running SLOWER than E's.

    Now, suppose the planet Mars, at some particular time, is moving directly towards Earth at 0.866c (i.e. Mars is moving in the same direction as clock A, and opposite to clock B). I will call a clock on Mars clock M.

    Some questions before I go on:

    1. Obviously Mars was not launched from Earth, so is it possible to compare clock M with clock E?
    2. If the answer to (1) is "yes", then what are the relative rates of clock M and clock E? Which one is running slow, and which one is fast?

    I will await your answers.

Share This Page