3 clock problem

R

ryans

Come to see me about a dog hey
Registered Senior Member
MacM is convinced Special relativity is flawed.

I plan to f*** him up in terms of his perceptions of the 3 clock problem.

I know what he is going to do, get into shit then bring in his magical quantum teleporter which sends communications instantaneously. This is bullshit. In all the previous posts he has failed to submit to us one single peer reviewed paper about the possibilities of using quantum entanglement to comminicate faster then light.

Mac, I have never read any of your previous posts on the 3 clock problem, as I know it is utter bullshit. But I will now just so I can make a fool of you. The only reason that you think that you one previous arguements is that you were argueing against amateurs. Bring it on OLD MAN.
 
Originally posted by ryans
Mac, I have never read any of your previous posts on the 3 clock problem, as I know it is utter bullshit. But I will now just so I can make a fool of you. The only reason that you think that you one previous arguements is that you were argueing against amateurs. Bring it on OLD MAN.
Click to expand...

Ryans,

If you have never read the earlier discussions (uniKEF thread, if i remember correctly) on 3 clock, then how do you come to the conclusion that MacM has a reason to think that he won the previous arguements as he had argued only with presumed amateurs..? Your conclusion is as wrong as MacM's. Please read earlier discussions and sure you will get an idea or two (how FTL debunked) from them cuz some of the forum members were not 'amateurs' as you think. wish you, ryans, best of luck with MacM.
 
Amatuers

ryans,

You sure know how to make friends.:D

This should be interesting. It will be this evening before I can re-post an updated version of (3) Clocks.

Actually, I will be pleased if you provide a suitable solution. If you had followed the prior strings on the subject my goal is to clarify and/or correct what appears to be flaws in the concept of time dialation, not necessarily invalidate it.

And everneo is quite correct, there were several very qualified persons involved in the string.

So lets see what you got you egotistical upstart.

From:
(Bring it on OLD MAN.)

PS: You accepted your error on c=Pi*(r^2), are you ever going to admit your error or Pi on a rotating merry-go-round?
 
Read the appropriate post my Janus 58 in the O.K. Relavists thread. I am correct. As you will see, know one said anything about contraction of the circumference.
 
Rules & Procedures, Phase I

ryans,

I want to first establish the rules and procedures that we agree to for the test. In the prior string we got over half way through and complaints and obsticales were put in the path of completing the test without altering the test procedure.


First the test involves clocks in linear relavistic motion. How we get to that point will be agreed to in phase II.

So do we agree that the appropriate formula for addressing time dilation due to linear motion is:


tr = t0(1-(v/c)^2)^.5

Where tr is time relavistic (observed clock rate) by an observer with a clock rate of t0.

Yes or No.
 
If I can understand the computer script properly, this is the correct formula.

But acceleration is the key factor as it addresses which clocks will be out of sync. If no acceleration is contained then both observers will see the others clock ticking more slowly. This is fundemental to relativity, there is no prefered frames of reference.
 
Sorry Mac about the comment on acceleration. The formula is correct and we will deal with the implications of acceleration later. Lets keep it structured and focus on one area of the arguement at a time.
 
Great

ryans,

Good. But for future consideration I want to go through your acceleration arguement for two reasons.

1 - I don't have a major problem with time dilation (apparent) due to acceleration. So at this point that is not being contested anyway.

2 - As the test would be structured it would have no impact on the results. I know you say it does but you are expanding the area we will be addressing which is strictly the linear velocity area. Any offset due to acceleration is eliminated because we are going to set up counters with each clock and count ticks but only during the period of linear velocity, so any absolute shift in clock time due to acceleration or different acceleration would not be evident in any case. We will be tracking clocks rates only during the test while at linear relative velocity and not absolute time recorded from the point of launch and return.

Are we agreed?

Yes or No?
 
Sorry Mac

Games up. I have a calculated proof in terms of acceleration, which excludes the existance of an infinitly fast communication device, because it doesn't exist. I wish I could convey this to you, but since you don't even Know calculus, I have realised that the exercise will be futile.

So you can continur the remainder of the discussion but I will not be responding because I know that your thinking is set in concrete (you being old and everything), and I have more important things to work on.


I really do feel sorry for you, because the concepts that Einstein discovered give us phenomena beyond imagination, and the beaty of it is that it goes totally against intuition.

If you just accepted relativity you would see the more wonderful things that it predicts, such as the existence of the positron when combined with quantum mechanics, as Dirac found.

And this is a message for Tom in regard to the fact pointed out that he worked in a warehouse.

Reality check buddy, you're not Einstein.
 
I do not know what you guys are talking about, but having read this thread, I have come to the conclusion that ryans is a ****. He just throws out insults and uses his egotistic knowledge of physics to make himself feel important. Ryans, you are a ****!

Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks, I guess

Wilcox8686,

I guess Thanks are in order but FYI James R., is cracking down on the profanity and insults, so tread lightly. I'd hate to lose a potential friend.;)


PS: Actually he is trying to bow out because he has learned that I can kick his behind when the rubber meets the road.

He has made more than a couple of phoo-paas on other strings such as saying c = pi*R^2, that in a space craft traveling v = c that light would not impinge on a sail when in fact it would continue to pass the sail at v = c and that the ratio of Pi changes when you measure a rotating platform - See topic OK Relavist.

He is in a box there also and he is running scared.

PS: ryan, please point out the calculus that I must know to perform the math for the time dilation formula. Seems like a mute point to me. A little duck and cover maybe on your part.?

If he bolts, I make the offer here to continue this string to any challenger.
 
Last edited:
: ryan, please point out the calculus that I must know to perform the math for the time dilation formula. Seems like a mute point to me. A little duck and cover maybe on your part.?
Click to expand...

I am saying that acceleration is necessary, you say it is not. I go and calculate my findings with acceleration, you say there not valid. What can I do if you can't understand what I am doing. Physics moved away from philosophy a long time ago, its language is now maths, not words.

That in a space craft traveling v = c that light would not impinge on a sail when in fact it would continue to pass the sail at v = c and that the ratio of Pi changes when you measure a rotating platform - See topic OK Relavist.
Click to expand...

Don't misconstrue my words. You know that I was answering the question in your framework, and this does not represent my opinion. You just got fucked up because even classically the highest speed obtainable is c as t->inf.

And hey fag, my answer to the rotating platform is correct, its just that you are to fucking stupid to grasp the answer.
 
Don't Look Good

ryans,

I am saying that acceleration is necessary, you say it is not. I go and calculate my findings with acceleration, you say there not valid. What can I do if you can't understand what I am doing. Physics moved away from philosophy a long time ago, its language is now maths, not words.
Click to expand...


ANS: I hope you realize that you aren't snowing anybody here. Just a couple of posts back you conceeded to no acceleration and to do a simple test.

Hell, keep your acceleration. Your the one doing the calculations (Wouldn't expect you to accept mine). I even give you my word that I care less what acceleration you use and how it alters the clocks. I told you it has no impact on the test.

Find some other basis for your cut and run. This one doesn't wash.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mac:That in a space craft traveling v = c that light would not impinge on a sail when in fact it would continue to pass the sail at v = c and that the ratio of Pi changes when you measure a rotating platform - See topic OK Relavist.


ryans:Don't misconstrue my words. You know that I was answering the question in your framework, and this does not represent my opinion. You just got fucked up because even classically the highest speed obtainable is c as t->inf. [/quote]


ANS: Again a false point. My arguement was that light passing the sail maintained v = c. That is not classical. You need to do better than this. You are starting to look really silly. And at no point did you state you were speaking out of normal context.

Even other members responded that what you said was correct "AS VIEWED FROM THE REST FRAME OF REFERENCE" Which is what my arguement was against in the first place.

The rockets performance is based on Relativity and the constant velocity of light from the rockets point of view. Trying to use a form of velocity addition from the rest point of view was entirely out of the question. And so are your answers.



And hey fag, my answer to the rotating platform is correct, its just that you are to fucking stupid to grasp the answer.
Click to expand...


ANS: To Other Members:

Does ryan have any supporters out there that thinks drawing circles on spheres answers the question?


THE QUESTION: "How do you propose to seperate the affect of Relativity such that it alters the ruler but not the merry-go-round, in a manner that causes the Pi ratio calculation to change."

I'm serious. If you have that answer I would love to see it.


And ryans, anytime you want to conceede my point which is that the examples given are invalid and that Pi doesn't change, then I will let you off the hook on this one. Surely you understand that no matter what geometry you invoke and where you put the ruler it becomes affected exactly just as the rotating frame you are describing and no effort to make Pi change works.

Not bad for an old man that doesn't do calculus - huh?
 
Last edited:
Hey Mac, Ijust realised I am the only one who bothers to try and explain things to you. You live in your dream world, and I will get on with the physics. Cya:D
 
To Any Intelligence OUt There

I just hope you can see that this selfappointed genius has failed to answer the question and that all the insults leveled at me are intended to infer that it is I that am wrong.

It is a very weak tactic by a very weak mind. His cutting and running under this cover should give you my answer.

"There is no change in Pi."

James R.,

Are you out there? What is your take on this issue. I respect your level head and knowledge. The arguement is not if Lorentz Contraction exists but if relavist are using a false example to try and convey the concept.

How does one, using whatever geometry, have Relativity to affect only the measuring rod and not the rotating object such that Pi becomes affected?
 
MacM,

before James R answer let me ask you a question. along your line..

If you take up SR effects and the circumference & ruler together undergo contraction but radius retains it original length, then :

assuming the the whole merry-go-round does not shatter, how the m-g-r with its contracted c and unchanged r remain in same flat plane..? radial has to bend/curve because c reduces and r remains.. you have a dome and the pi should be measured as (the reduced c / 2*radius of the base of the dome). clearly you can't take the curved radial to measure pi.



edit : rectfn.
 
Last edited:
Finally

everneo,

Congratulations. Somebody actually is starting to understand the problem.

If you have followed this string you know I have said my objection was not the concept of Relativity and Lorentz Contraction. It is and has been the improper description of relavists of using the Pi ratio as an analogy.

Velocity should (rim affect) shrink by velocity, the radius should shrink by acceleration (equivelent gravity). But the case has been argued haphazardly in one case that the rim changes but the radius doesn't. Then it is the rim doesn't but the radius does.

In either of these cases you get what you refer to a collasp of the merry-go-round (and as I stated the struts puncturing the rim).

And in any case at the rim, radius or both, the merry-go-round and a ruler is subjected to the same geometry and affects of Relativity which means there should be no measurable affect on Pi by definition.

I fully understand drawing circles on a sphere. Solid geometry. But for example in solid geometry you can refer to "Solid Angles" or "Steradians" but it is improper to refer to degrees angle because a triangle in solid geometry doesn't have 180 degrees included angles.

Likewise Pi is defined as the ratio between the diameter of a circle and its circumference. Not some variable ratio between the radius of a sphere and a circle drawn on its sufrace.

So the entire problem here is two fold.

1 - One Either the lack of understanding by the responders or their incapacity to communicate, not my lack of understanding anything yet discussed.

2 - The failure of explaining how Pi (the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference) changes relavistically when the ruler and merry go round, in any geometry, must also be subjected to the same affect of Relativity which cancels any mearsuremental change.

Your response has been appreciated.
 
Last edited:
The problem does not involve the contraction of the circumference relative to the observer on the m-g-r. How many times to I have to say this. Know one has formulated there answer in terms of this.
 
What?

ryan,

It seems I can only load one attaachment at a time so there will be a followup reply with attachment #2.


Question: How many time did you have to get your pp wacked before yu were potty trained?

My first example of why I disliked "The Elegant Universe was because Brian Greene makes the assinine statement about the changing pi and gives the very example you deny has been posted here.

A view that in the beginning you agreed to. Start reading from the las paragraph. The circumference changes because of velocity in the direction of motion. The radius does not change.

Now attachment #2.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top