What is a reference frame?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by James R, Oct 13, 2004.

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

    Messages:
    39,383
    MacM:

    The highlighted word is the source of your error. Learn.

    That is false, according to your specification of the test.

    Different clock rates result from relativistic time dilation.

    Each clock only reads one time at once, in any frame. No clock displays two readings at the same time in a single frame. Learn.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    It is long past time to level the playing field here.

    1 - Your mere assertion that I am in error and highlighting "Simultaneously" and then simply saying "Learn", is in no manner a scientific response to the issue.

    2 - There is one and only one test time interval. It runs from t=0 to t = 36,000 seconds.

    During this interval A has a tick rate which causes it to accumulate 36,000 seconds of proper time.

    During this SAME interval B has a tick rate which causes it to accumulate 36,000 seconds of proper time.

    3 - During the tick rate of A accumulating 36,000 seconds, you claim B also has another tick rate which causes it to only accumulate 18,000 seconds.

    4 - You also claim that during the tick rate of B accumulating its 36,000 seconds that A has another tick rate which causes it to only accumulate 18,000 seconds.

    5 - During each clocks dilated tick rates they further see the other clock have a tick rate that causes them to only accumulate 9,000 seconds, while they are accumulating 18,000 seconds. All occuring concurrently (Simultaneously) while they each actually operate on proper time and accumulate 36,000 seconds. What a load of crap.

    All the double talk and innuendo in the world does not address the fact that TICK RATES ARE CONCURRENT (SIMULTANEOULSY RUNNING). PHYSICAL CLOCKS CANNOT AND DO NOT HAVE MULTIPLE TICK RATES SIMULTANEOUSLY, HENCE DO NOT ACCUMULATE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF TIME WITHIN THE SAME TEST TIME INTERVAL.

    PERIOD.

    Now either address this issue and stop claiming some superior understanding of nature. It is not there.

    You are not reading very clearly. My comments are in regards to the graphics I posted. It is very much part of the test. Now deal with it.

    No physical clock in the universe does it have different tick rates concurrently in the same test time interval. Get real. You are talking nonsense.

    Agreed, but what you fail to address is the reality of the clock display of actual accumulated time within the 36,000 seconds. All views exist in the same test time interval. That is CONCURRENT (Simultaneous).

    Any number other than 36,000 seconds is nothing more than an error of measurement, not a change of actual accumulated time by the physical clock (This response does not deny the fact that clocks can show dilated time. It goes to the falicy of Relativity as advocated as the cause.)..

    Your own presentation where you caused distance to change clearly tells the story.

    t = d/v and t' = d'/v; which in both cases mathematically already determines that tick rates are equal and any time differential between clcoks would be due to differential distance traveled and not an alternate tick rate.

    Claiming the other observer therefore "Assumes" time dilation" actually makes my point. It is observational and has nothing to do with the reality of clock tick rates.

    Now stop talking gibberish and address the physics in reality and not by unsupported fiat. We know what Relativity claims but anyone not sticking their head in the sand also knows that it is not physical reality.
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    39,383
    MacM,

    I have completely covered your issues earlier.

    This is only true in A's frame. The test interval is 72000 seconds in B's frame. As I explained before.

    Yes.

    Wrong. In this interval, B accumulates 18000 seconds in A's frame, or 72000 seconds in B's frame. Obviously, the same interval has different lengths for each observer. This results from the way you set up the test.

    .... in A's frame, yes.

    ... in B's frame, yes.

    You're mixing frames again. Learn.

    Yes, what a load of crap.

    The correct statement is:

    Clocks cannot and do not have multiple tick rates in the same reference frame, and hence do not accumulate different times in that frame for a given test interval.

    Period.

    Wrong again.

    Experiments prove you are wrong. Get real. You are talking nonsense.

    That is meaningless rubbish.

    Length contraction is a well known result of relativity. Learn.

    Done. Multiple times.

    Whatever. Your unsupported assertions are tiresome.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Absolutely false. You have not once addressed the physics issues. You just keep repeating the same rhetoric and fiat.

    False. You continue to fail to address the tick rate issue. Tick rates are concurrent (i.e running simultaneously) in the same test time interval. While A is accumulating 36,000 seconds, Relativity claims that B is accumulating only 18,000 seconds (Same time interval). But Relativity also says that b is at rest and in the same test time interval it too accumulates 36,000 seconds in the same 10 hour test. That is two tick rates for the same clock.

    Now deal with it.

    Wrong. There is only 10 hours of testing. Each clock accumulates 36,000 seconds during that test time interval in each's proper time frame (rest).

    The fact is you also claim that each also only accumulates 18,000 secondsviewed from the other frame. That is two tick rates for both clocks in the same 36,000 second time period. There is no 72,000 second consideration. Tick rate man - TICK RATE. This test can show Relativity wrong in 5 seconds, not just 36,000 or 72,000 seconds. Tick rates are concurrent. Each clock cannot accumulate 36,000 seconds in 10 hours and also only accumulate 18,000 seconds. That requires two different tick rates.

    If tick rates are not different then there is no timedilation either. Now do they have different tick rtes or do they not?

    Clock B has only one existance. And it has only one tick rate. Period. Anythingelse is perceptional and not physical reality. Sorry. You are not supporting your claim with physics. Only fiat.

    No. You learn. You are not addressing the issue of physical reality and tick rates. Now address this issue with physics. Show this illusive duality of reality graphically. Show the clocks displaying your claimed times on a 36,000 second graph.

    Glad you finally agree.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But that is what Relativity claims and it is not a physical possibility. Sorry. back to the drawing board for Relativists.

    You almost got it right. Clocks do not accumulate time at different rates in any frames according to Relativity if you look at the overall claims macroscopically. You insist on looking at only one frame at a time and ignore that all frames co-exist simultaneously. Tick rates exist simultaneously.

    As I have said your answers fall short of scientific or supported arguements.

    Don't take my words out of context. Of course there are test that show time dilation. But as I have said that doesn't prove Relativity, it invalidates it since in accordance with Relativity both clocks should slow equally to encompass both frame views, in which case there can be no systemic measureable time dilation. As I said in this ost I am not refuting clocks dilation but that it is in accordance with Relativity. Now address the issue.

    Meaningless rubbish is your response. You make curt comments but never address the issues inphysics terms. Why is that do you suppose. Can't do it I suspect.

    Your repeated assertion for me to learn is really ....well what can I say. Not much of a response at all. I have shown complete knowledge of what relativity claims. I have given clear stated reasons why they cannot be physical reality. You on the other hand have yet to ever provide any physics answers but seem to think rhetoric, fiat and innuendo will get you by. They don't. The issue stands unchallenged at this point.

    False as pointed out above.

    I have provided far more in the way of support than you have.. You chose to simply make statements without any logic or support.

    I provided a graph of 0---------------->36,000 seconds of test time interval. Now you do the same and show how, and when these clocks display the times you claim are real. Otherwise button up.
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    MacM:

    In fact, it is only me who has provided any actual physics in this discussion. Turn your mirror on yourself. You are the one making the unsupported assertions.

    You have no evidence for any of your bizarre claims. Your claims contradict known experimental results, and also would destroy the logical consistency of many other known theoretical results if they were true.

    You have no argument other than your own "fiat". You have no mathematical ability to speak of, and no actual derivation of your claims from first principles. All you have is a set of vague notions, combined with a fanatical conviction that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong about your vague ideas.

    What does this mean? Nothing useful, as far as I can tell. Yet you keep repeating it as if it is a great wisdom.

    The two clocks A and B both tick "at the same time", for at least part of your test, in each frame. They do not tick at the same rate in either frame.

    Your "concurrency" concept, whatever it may be, is not part of physics, just as your "reciprocity" is not part of physics.

    That's only correct in A's frame and for the particular specifications of this particular test, as specified by you. It is not a generally true statement, and it is not independent of frame, as you implicitly believe.

    If your test specifies that B runs until it counts up to 36000, then that will, of course, take 36000 seconds in B's frame. In another frame, it will take a different amount of time.

    There are only 10 hours of testing in A's frame. In B's frame, your test takes 20 hours to complete.

    You specify the conditions of the test. You live with the results.

    No. Please re-read.

    Wrong.

    I've already explained tick rate to you. It's a simple matter of time dilation.

    Duh!

    They do. This is beginner relativity. Why haven't you got to first base in the past couple of years?

    One existence, yes. One tick rate in one frame. Different tick rate in other frames. That's time dilation.

    I'm sorry that your claim is unsupported.

    Wrong. The theory of relativity is an accepted part of physics, and it supports my claims.

    On the other hand, where is the support for your claims? Oh, there isn't any.

    I've drawn you many spacetime diagrams in the past. You've ignored them. I'm not even sure what you want, and, anyway, it won't convince you. I won't waste my time.

    You can make any crazy claim you like about your own theories, but when you make blatantly incorrect statements about relativity, like this one, expect me to pull you up on it. Time dilation is a basic result of relativity. Here you're claiming it isn't. At least try to educate yourself.

    This is your entire argument in a nutshell. No maths. No support. Only fiat. And you draw incorrect conclusions from an illogical line of reasoning.

    Your statement "all frames co-exist simultaneously" is meaningless. It makes a mockery of the definitions of both the terms "frame" and "simultaneously".

    1. A frame covers all time from negative infinity to positive infinity. It doesn't exist at one time, as you imply. Please review the first post of my thread "What is a reference frame". Learn.

    2. Only events can be simultaneous or not simultaneous. Frames cannot be simultaneous or not simultaneous.

    Hello, Mr Pot. Meet Mr Kettle.

    You can't decide what you think. Either time dilation exists or it doesn't. Make up your mind.

    You specified that the 36000 seconds was to be timed from A's point of view. A controls the test, you said. Maybe you need to read your own test specification again.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Where is your graph. I see more talk and unsupported fiat.

    False. I have given ample support for my claims. The experiments you are so jproud of do not support the claims of Relativity, they invalidate it. Any clock that shows dilation between itself and another clock due to relative velocity voids the opposite view mandated by Relativity which is the dilated clock observer being at rest and seeing the other clock dilated.

    Both clocks must dilated to satisfy both views which are part and parcel of Reltivity. You keep wanting to look at only one view. Both views co-exists and both views must be supported physically by clocks. Hence there can (according to Relativity) be no systemic measureable time dilation between clocks due to relative velocity.

    The fact that one clock dilates violates Relativity as advocated.

    Where is your graph. All I see here is words. Each clock according to relativity, in a 10 hour test time period will accumulate 36,000 seconds because each physical clock is presumed to be at rest (although it isn't, just as there is no absolute velocity there is therefore no absolute rest either).

    Do you agree each clock will accumulate 36,000 seconds in the same 10 hour test period? (I know what you will say and believe me I am waiting for you to say it).

    So you have just said that a physical clock has multiple tick rates. This is ONE clock being viewed from different frames. It is not multiple clocks. An observers view of a clock does not and cannot affect that clocks physics.

    The clock ticks at its proper rate. A moving jobserver may perceive it running slow but that does not make it run slow. Accumulated time is based on the clocks own frame not the observers frame. You are mixing perception with reality.

    Concurrency is a physical requirement for there to be relative velocity. I have shown you manytimes that "Reciprocity" is mentioned in many papers on Relativity. It is nothing but a term stipulating the recipopcal relationship where each observer sees the other as being the one in motion. Do you deny that this is part of Relativity. That each observers sees the other as being in motion? If not then you subscribe to reciprocity.

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

    Messages:
    39,383
    MacM:

    Here, for the last time, is your test, from the two frames:

    A's frame
    t=0 ... A starts ticking. B starts ticking.
    t=36000 ... A stops ticking. Simultaneously, B stops ticking.
    B ticks slow in this frame, so that when it stops ticking it displays 18000 s.
    Both observers agree on the final readings.

    B's frame
    t'=0 ... A and B start ticking.
    t'=18000 ... B stops ticking. A continues to tick.
    t'=36000 ... A still ticking.
    t'=72000 ... A stops.
    A ticks slow in this frame, so that when it stops ticking it displays 36000 s.
    Both observers agree on the final readings.

    After the test is over, both observers agree on which events happened.
    * Both agree that A and B started.
    * Both agree that A and B stopped.
    * Both agree on the final readings on A and B.

    They disagree on when these events happened (i.e. the t and t' values are different in some cases). They also disagree on where the events happened (the x and x' coordinates of some events differ between observers).

    Draw your own graph. You have all the required information here.

    No it doesn't.

    Wrong again. In any one frame, only one clock is dilated.

    That is meaningless, as explained above. Please re-read.

    Your premiss is false, so your conclusion does not follow.

    Clock B dilates in A's frame.
    Clock A dilates in B's frame.

    Your statement is false.

    See above. Clock A determines the test period. You said it must. You can't pretend you specified something else now.

    Yes. Different tick rates in different frames. It's called time dilation. Learn.

    An observer's view affects his notions of spacetime. What alters is distances and times, not internal clock workings.

    Perception is reality. You have no argument that it is not so.

    You are selecting a preferred reference frame. Such a thing doesn't exist.

    You use the term to mean much more besides that.

    Not the way you use it.

    See, for example, the muon lifetime experiments.

    Yes, but the test doesn't end after 10 hours for B. You set it up. You live with it.

    Not according to the way you set up the test.

    I won't waste my time. I guess this thread is over.

    I hereby declare myself the "winner" of this argument!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Messages:
    39,383
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Just what part do you not understand about there being Relativity in physics but that these test invalidate Einsteins Relativity, not prove it?

    You continue to want to take a piece meal view and pick parts out of context of the theory as a whole. Yes clocks dilate when in motion but not due to relative motion to each other according to Relativity.

    If A and B have relative motion. One in physical reality has higher velocity than the other because motion is relative to the universe at large and not just to one select object. It is simple to see that if two craft are in space and one "A" has a velocity to earth of .2 c and the other "B" is 0.666 c, that they have a relative velocity of either 0.866c or 0.466 c to each other or some other value as a function of their respective vectors. (I'm skipping the VAF confusion factor to make a simple point).

    In either case B always has a higher velocity and cannot assume the position of rest and have A moving with greator velocity than B.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    I understand that you are wrong. Physicists believe these results support relativity.

    Why do they dilate then, if not because of Relativity? (Please don't cite your UniKEF theory, which is useless.)

    There is no evidence that a preferred reference frame like the one you want exists.
     
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    JamesR sorry to say it but I take small issue with this comment.

    Objects dilate because of natural pheno, which Relativity tries to explain. Dilation certainly does not occur because of relativity unless dilation is a relativity construct and not a reality.
    I do realise you already understand this as you have said it more than once yourself. I just felt this distinction needed to be emphasised if not for the benefit of other readers.
     
  15. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    by James R:

    "An observer's view affects his notions of spacetime. What alters is distances and times, not internal clock workings.
    "Why do they dilate then, if not because of Relativity?"
    ===============================================================

    I, of course, do not agree with these statements either. Science has solid evidence
    of one fact that cannot be disputed: clocks tick faster while located in the lower
    gravitational field of high Earth orbit. It has also been shown that clocks on Earth
    tick faster on a mountaintop than they do at sealevel. This is not based on 'views'
    but on reality. The internal workings of clocks do change. Cesium and rubidium atoms,
    for certain, do vibrate at different rates in different locations wrt the location of mass.
    This is proven reality, not just preception or theory. So, are the laws of physics the
    same in that location? They are IN THAT LOCATION, but the measurements will differ when compared to another location, on Earth for example. Do you disagree, James?
    Or do you believe there is some sort of 'universal time' that coinsides with Earth time
    and all physical processes and measurements have to conform to 'Earth time'?
     
  16. dav57 Extraordinary Thinker Thingy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    621
    Go give it to him 2inq......
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Btw I have started a thread that might help clarify the issue of simultaneousness. Absolute time and relative time can and must co-exist.
    Thread title:
    The Velocity of light and the velocity of Mass - are they the same type of velocity?
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,383
    2inquisitive:

    Views are reality. There's no meaningful difference.

    I agree.

    No. I agree with you.

    Have you read any of my previous posts?
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Only because they close one eye. Look at the totality of Relativity and it falls apart.

    False but that is not at issue here. One can look at LR and see why something might have a relavistic relationship but even LR is not satisfactory. We do not have a suitable explanation at this time. But A.E.'s Relativity is way off the mark.

    It is not a matter of what I want. It is a matter of what IS. Do you not see that if you have two observers in motion and look only at those two observers, then you create the very unresolvable situation you are having to deal with. That is with no other reference indeed one could claim he is at rest and the other in motion AND VICE VERSA.

    However, it is pretty damn simple to just look around and see that by selecting any common point as a referance that one will have a greater velocity and hence cannot be considered at rest and the other in motion.

    One will (can) have a greater velocity and that greater velocity cannot be ignored to the exclusion of the universe around it and then claim the opposite situation is reality.
     
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Sorry but NO they don't. You are not even in accordance with Relativity here.

    1 - You can see that in frame B you have A' ticking at 1/4 the rate of A. That is equivelent to v = 0.9683c, not 0.866c.

    2 - Also, you can see that you have A (a physical clock) ticking at two different rates: 1.000 (in A's frame) and 0.5 (in B's frame) during a concurrent relative velocity test.

    You keep saying "But only one rate in each frame". You must be an advocate of the "Many Worlds" view to suggest that a physical clock has two different tick rates. Remember the same physical clock exists in both frames. It is the same clock. Your attempt to seperate the clock's physical reality in seperate frames doesn't cut it.

    That is not physics, it is mumbo-jumbo.



    Their relationship is "Relative Velocity". To be "relative" the views are "Concurrent". t = 0 and t' = 0 is the same instant. t = 36,000 or 18,000 is the same instant within the test time interval, otherwise there is no relative velocity.

    http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3650&stc=1

    I have and you are clearly fouled up.


    You have to be kidding. "Relative velocity" requires the views are simultaneous and Relativity mandates neither clock (observer) experiences anything but being at rest with the other clock being the one in motion.

    Both clocks tick at their local proper tick rate and accumulate 36,000 seconds during a 36,000 "Relative Velocity Test Time Interval".

    The arguement about time dilation then becomes one of perspective and not actual tick rates. And even that is not acceptable in physical reality in accordance with Relativity.

    No test has ever yielded such data. The only data ever generated shows only one clock display a dilated time.


    It would be nice if for once you backed up your claims that I am wrong. I just said you keep wanting to look at only one view and you respond "Wrong again. In any one frame, only one clock is dilated." When the reality is that both views co-exist, concurrently in the same relative velocity test time interval. Each clock will from its rest postion accumulate 36,000 seconds from the same 10 hour test interval.

    But the reality is one clock doesn't. It dilates which suggest that clock has a velocity greater than the other hence is not relative to that clock but some undetected background.


    Wrong. Please re-think.


    My premis is correct. Do you deny that Relativity says that each observer considers himself at rest and sees the other as in motion. Or are you now going to claim that such observers actually measure absolute velocity?


    My statement is in accordance with any and all data ever collected. If not so then please provide a link to a test where both views are supported by two dilated clocks data.


    Your response ignores the fact that each clock observer sees himself at rest and the other in motion. Each clock therefore according to Relativity will accumulate 36,000 seconds time during a 36,000 "Relative Velocity Test Time Interval". Why do you insist on only considering one aspect of Relativity at a time. Could it be that all claims of Relativitycollectively are incompatable to physical reality?


    There you go again. Telling ME to learn when you don't seem to be able to.

    Go read Relativity.

    An observer does not measure his own velocity, he sees the other observer as in motion; hence he sees no change in his time. Both clocks accumulate the same time during a test involving relative velocity. This is every bit as much a part of Relativity as your proclaimed (and impossible) time dilation.

    You seem to be getting desperate. What happened to the frequency of atomic clocks? While you are at it explain how clocks have a different tick rate if the distance d = vt, travel time at a given velocity, has altered and accounts for the accumulated time using the same tick rates?

    So then you claim that when looking in the curved mirror at the science museum you really are fatter or slimmer?

    I am selecting the frame the clock ticks in. It does only have one physical reality and one physical tick rate you know.

    Afraid not. Please give an example of "Relative Velocity" where there is only one observer.

    Sure the hell is. It is very specific in that regard.

    "Each observer sees the other in motion. That motion is equal. Any affects are therefore equal and each clock slows equally".

    I don't think you have given this enough thought. If the muon's life time didn't become extended then no time dilation occured. This time dilation is in the muon's life time.

    Also there is no recipocal change in earth's clocks according to the muon.

    That is as I have said before a case, just as is the case with GPS, of only ONE clock showing dilation. Such affect is therefore based on motion at large and not mutually relative motion between observers.

    When A (muon or GPS orbit clock) are moving, they have a higher velocity than earth but you cannot then claim the muon or GPS clock as at rest and it be the earth that is in motion, which is an error in Relativity.


    You screwed it up you live with it. You have A' running at 1/4 the speed of A when the relative velocity is 0.866c.


    According to Relativity and the fact that each observer sees the other in motion and not himself.


    Declare away. That is all you have been able to do thus far is make fiat declarations. The facts are still here for all to see. You have failed

    Your above arguements have deliberately avoided the issue of reciprocity, concurrency, simultaneousness, or whatever term you chose to use, to describe "Relative Motion" and/or "Relative Velocity".

    There is no relative velocity unless the views are concurrent and co-exist in the same time interval.

    Each sees the other in motion with no affect to themselves, hence each will accumulate (according to Relativity) the same amount of time. That is 36,000 seconds in a given 10 hours test time interval.

    Your arbitrary extension of the table showing A going to 36,000 seconds in 72,000 seconds according to B's view is outside the scope of the question and actually does nothing to alter the issue of concurrent tick rates.

    i.e - At B = 18,000, A = 9,000 (1/2 B) and at 72,000 for B A = 36,000 (1/2 B). But the issue is that WITHIN the designated 10 hours A accumulates both 36,000 seconds and 9,000 seconds. Saying this is in a different frame does not alter the fact of accumulated time nor that this is but one physical clock.

    Nor does your response address the issue that the entire scenario is reversable according to Relativity. That is B accumulates 36,000 seconds, sees A accumulate only 18,000 seconds and A sees B only accumulate 9,000 seconds, in the same 10 hour "Relative Velocity" test time interval.

    Your response tries to ignore the complete ramifications of the claims of Relativity and the fact that only one clock ever shows time dilation where one should be able (according to Relativity) reverse the scenario and show that the other clock dilated. It has never been done and will never be done.

    Why? Because Relativity per Einstien is a flawed view.

    Dare I say your claim of victory is hollow indeed. More like fraud.


    Since that is not in accordance with our experimental data and observation then Relativity is flawed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2005
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    When citing "Proofs of Relativity" why do you not cite all data available?

    ****************** Extracts from *********************

    http://www.wbabin.net/physics/marcus.htm

    Comparison of the various measured orbital Discordancies with the figures predicted by Einstein's relativity (Poor 1922): (in seconds of arc per century)

    PLANET...........DISCORDANCE........EINSTEIN..........DIFFERENCE MEASURED
    Perihelia --
    Mercury..............+ 41.6.................+ 42.9........................- 1.3
    Venus................- 7.3..................+ 8.6.........................- 15.9
    Earth.................+ 5.9....................+ 3.8..........................+ 2.1
    Mars..................+ 8.1....................+ 1.3..........................+ 6.8

    When all discordancies of the planets are considered, it can be seen that except for very closely approximating the perihelion of Mercury, Relativity fails completely to accord with the others listed in the table.

    As with the planets Mercury/Venus/Earth/Mars etc., in the late 1950s, the eclipsing double star system named Di Herculis was found to have a precession of its elliptical orbit as well. Since the two stars orbit their common centre of gravity every ten and a half days in a celestial see-saw type motion, their long axis precession is readily observable.

    But relativity quite unyieldingly predicts for this situation a long axis precession of over twice as much as is observed, and so the Di Herculis precession presents a critical inconsistency with relativity of no less a standard than occurs with the precessions (etc.) of the inner planets other than Mercury.

    And another not insubstantial blow to relativity appears to have been discovered from observations of the similar AS Camelopardalis system, where despite some relativity-favouring factors in this case, a similarly critical problem exists with the precession of its long axis: there still remaining a failure to account for the fact that relativity, again unbendingly, predicts its celestial motion to be about three times what is observed.

    The curvature of light again: Einstein also predicted that the light from a star which grazed the surface of the Sun would be deflected 1.75" of arc due to the pull of gravity.

    ...........it was claimed that they nevertheless showed that the expected deflection did take place and that therefore Einstein's theory was once again confirmed by experimental results.

    "Thirty-three photographic plates taken during the eclipse of 1919 show star images; of these thirty-three, seven only give results even approximating towards the Einstein predictions.

    And to make even these seven fit the hypothesis, the relativist is forced to invoke the aid of the Sun to distort the camera in a particular way and by just the right amount!"
    *****************************************************

    This sort of correlation appears to support more the arguement made by many that A.E. was a clever conman that reverse engineered his Mercury solution knowing the value he wanted to achieve.

    I'm not claiming here he did. I am claiming the data does support that view.

    There does seem to be a habit of grabbing and claiming any test data that supports the relavistic view but to disregard the fact that many more experiments or observtions fail to fit.

    It hardly seems sceintific to be selective when choosing data to cite as proof.

    Unless these flaws are resolved there simply is no proof of relativity other than what is manufactured by selective referances.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2005
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Just something I want to confirm regards teh use of a reference frame.

    WE know that when we use a reference frame that frame considers it's v=0. BUt what Iwould like to confirm is that not only does it consider it's Frame as at rest it also must consider it's time as always being cntral betweeen future and Past , in other words teh rest frame is always in it's own NOW. The moment of making records is in the NOW.

    When swapping to another frame and using that as your reference it to assumes a position of rest v=0 and also deems itself to be in it's now as well.

    The question is then How do we determine how much time separates those NOW's?

    If a ship has been traveling for 1000 years at v= o.8c relative to our rest frame what is the amount of time that separates the frames NOW's?

    And if we don't know an objects history of velocity how can this figure be determined?
     
  23. fo3 acdcrocks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    This should depend on whether the ship is moving away from or towards the observer in the frame at rest, but by this formula (I'm not sure at all about whether it could be used here) the Now's should be differ by three times. The ships Now should be 2000 years ahead or 666 years behind the rest frame.

    t' = t * sqrt[ (1+v/c) / (1-v/c) ]

    don't take my words as solid gold, anyway.. I'm not sure about this.
     

Share This Page