Does Reciprocity Falsify Special Relativity?

[DaleSpam]

Of course relative velocity has a vector but the point is when you reverse that vector you are creating a preferred frame.

So, according to you, the only way for someone to go back home at the end of the work day is for there to be a prefered frame? I am truly amazed at the number of different ways that you invent to be wrong. Everytime someone points out an error you justify it with an even more fundamental error.

Your personal slander only shows your weak position.

In order for a statement to be slander (libel) it must be false. Do the math for the Lorentz transform in this scenario and prove my words slanderous. Until then I can reasonably continue to insult your pathetic SR and math abilities without writing a word of libel.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

DaleSpam,

I'll merely note that an inhabitant of planet X must have his clock dilate to reach earth under these conditions and that for the earthling making a round trip his clock must increase tick rate after having dilated to reach planet X. Hence the treatment of the two travelers is not the same.

I don't have to restort to calling you ignorant you make that clear all by yourself.

 

[DaleSpam]

I'll merely note that an inhabitant of planet X must have his clock dilate to reach earth under these conditions and that for the earthling making a round trip his clock must increase tick rate after having dilated to reach planet X. Hence the treatment of the two travelers is not the same.

Show it then. Use the Lorentz transform and show how SR comes up with the conclusion you claim it does.

The only way you have ever found anything to criticize about SR is to tie half of the theory behind your back.

-Dale

 

[DaleSpam]

My apologies in advance, the lack of TeX support will make this a little difficult to read. Here {{a,b},{c,d}} is a 2x2 matrix with row vectors {a,b} and {c,d} and (a,b) is a column vector. So if we consider a single time dimension and a single space dimension in the standard configuration then we can write an arbitrary event in the earth frame as X=(ct,x) and that same event in the other planet's frame is X'=(ct',x'). In units where c=1 the Lorentz transform from the earth to the primed frame is:
L={{γ,-γv},{-γv,γ}}
and the transform from the primed frame back to the earth frame is
L'={{γ,γv},{γv,γ}}

Note that L is similar in form to L', but that they are distinct. Note also that time dilation is seen in the transform L'.X'=X and also in the transform L.X=X' (reciprocity), however there is no time dilation in the transform L'.L.X=I.X=X where I is the identity matrix {{1,0},{0,1}}. This also agrees with my earlier statements that a Lorentz transform is not its own inverse. Note further that the transfer you have been pontificating about, the one with a γ² time dilation, would be L.L.X which would not get you back into the earth frame, but would instead put you in a frame moving with speed v in the primed frame but in the opposite direction of earth.

-Dale

 

[Billy T]

... I sleep with my one eye close in 12 hours cycles.

You joke, or are a shark. - Sharks must swim to ventilate their gills sufficiently. They can never stop swiming for more than a few minutes except for a few who have found under water caves with currents. Yet all animals must sleep. (No one knows why.) Thus sharks sleep each half of their brain in alternating cycles.

 

[MacM]

My apologies in advance, the lack of TeX support will make this a little difficult to read. Here {{a,b},{c,d}} is a 2x2 matrix with row vectors {a,b} and {c,d} and (a,b) is a column vector. So if we consider a single time dimension and a single space dimension in the standard configuration then we can write an arbitrary event in the earth frame as X=(ct,x) and that same event in the other planet's frame is X'=(ct',x'). In units where c=1 the Lorentz transform from the earth to the primed frame is:
L={{γ,-γv},{-γv,γ}}
and the transform from the primed frame back to the earth frame is
L'={{γ,γv},{γv,γ}}

Note that L is similar in form to L', but that they are distinct. Note also that time dilation is seen in the transform L'.X'=X and also in the transform L.X=X', however there is no time dilation in the transform L'.L.X=I.X=X where I is the identity matrix {{1,0},{0,1}}. This also agrees with my earlier statements that a Lorentz transform is not its own inverse. Note further that the transfer you have been pontificating about, the one with a factor of four time dilation, would be L.L.X which would not get you back into the earth frame, but would instead put you in a frame moving with velocity v in the primed frame but in the opposite direction of earth.

-Dale

You are wasting your breath. This is not about transforms that undo the basic tenants of SR.; The basic move is if you accelerate and achieve a relative velocity your clock dilates.

I clearly broke this down into discrete moves and did not initially make it a round trip. In both cases the one way move is a dilated clock. I even said in reality the returnging clock ticks at the same rate buty that was not the issue.

You want to make up a different issue. That is BS.

 

[DaleSpam]

This is not about transforms that undo the basic tenants of SR.

Newsflash for you MacM. The Lorentz transform is the mathematical form of "the basic tenants of SR".

-Dale

 

[James R]

MacM:

Who said anything about what Earth sees. For the 100th time this is not about perception. It is about dilated time as accumulated on a clock.

Then set your problem up properly. When do the clocks on the spaceship, and Earth, and planet X start? When do they stop?

Bear in mind the relativity of simultaneity, of course, which says you can't start two clocks at the same time in two different frames.

If I had started from planet X and said earth was moving away at 0.866c you would have claimed that the craft clock dilated to 1/2 the X rate anad that earth's clocks also tick at 1/2 the rate of X.

Yes, in the reference frame of planet X.

You still, after all these years, can't grasp the concept of a reference frame.

Nothing changes just because it is a round trip.

Yes, it does.

The spacecraft in your scenario undergoes multiple acclerations. Remember that SR deals with inertial frames of reference, not accelerated frames. Planet X never accelerates, and neither does Earth.

 

[Anomalous]

You joke, or are a shark. - Sharks must swim to ventilate their gills sufficiently. They can never stop swiming for more than a few minutes except for a few who have found under water caves with currents. Yet all animals must sleep. (No one knows why.) Thus sharks sleep each half of their brain in alternating cycles.

Greate, I like sharks then, Being a shark one can also bite SuperLuminal.

 

[AndersHermansson]

The funny thing about this is that you could actually use the phrase "You might aswell try to talk to a stone" and mean in literally.

 

[DaleSpam]

MacM,

By the way, I was thinking about this a little bit and I realized that while your scenario is obviously not an argument against SR it may be an argument against your "one-way gamma function", at least without postulating an absolute reference frame. Of course, you haven't ever worked out the math rigorously, so it is hard to tell for certain. Perhaps you could do your song and dance routine explaining your MacM theory v1.0 approach to this scenario. That ought to be entertaining at least.

-Dale

 

[Billy T]

Greate, I like sharks then, Being a shark one can also bite SuperLuminal.

be careful> I think he can be toxic.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

By the way, I was thinking about this a little bit and I realized that while your scenario is obviously not an argument against SR it may be an argument against your "one-way gamma function", at least without postulating an absolute reference frame. Of course, you haven't ever worked out the math rigorously, so it is hard to tell for certain. Perhaps you could do your song and dance routine explaining your MacM theory v1.0 approach to this scenario. That ought to be entertaining at least.

-Dale

I think you need to learn to understand english when it is written. I do write english.

 

[DaleSpam]

Yes you do write english. Too bad you don't write physics, math, or logic.

I guess it isn't too surprising that you don't want to try your own theory out on this scenario.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

Yes you do write english. Too bad you don't write physics, math, or logic.

I guess it isn't too surprising that you don't want to try your own theory out on this scenario.

-Dale

Since reciprocity doesn't actually exist as advocated how is it possible to try it out? :bugeye:

 

[DaleSpam]

Since reciprocity doesn't actually exist as advocated how is it possible to try it out? :bugeye:

What does that have to do with how your theory would describe this situation? So far you are no better at articulating your own position than you are at articulating the SR position.

-Dale

 

[CANGAS]

I might have hinted at it before, that I seriously doubt Special Relativity and its offspring, General Relativity but do not consider the matter conclusively proved to everyone, yet.

SR was begat by Lorentz Relativity which was begat by the seeming failure of Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments in the 1880s to verify velocity of light in absolute space.

Antoon Lorentz was obviously infatuated by the Emitter Theory of light which claimed that light participated in the velocity of its source. His derivation of "gamma" was obviously based upon the idea that light was given a sideways velocity when reflected by a sideways moving mirror. When Albert Einstein reflected upon the matter, shortly after having seriously flirted with Emitter Theory, he wound up agreeing with Lorentz Relativity except that he claimed that space was not absolute. Einstein adopted Lorentz's "gamma" intact, even though it was based on absolute space and the Emitter Theory. Einstein heretically postulated that light had speed totally independent of its emitting source, yet inexplicably adopted the Lorentz "gamma", based upon light adopting the velocity of its reflecting source.

The validity of Lorentz Relativity and its "gamma" and the validity of subsequent Einstein Relativity and its gamma depends critically upon the hypothesis that light speed is relative and therefore observed to read out the same numbers to every observer in every frame of reference.

The only way that Lorentz Relativity "gamma" and Einstein Relativity gamma can be validly operative is if the speed of light really is ALWAYS observed to be the same numbers, and this seems to be based on the totally questionable premise that light takes on the velocity of its emitting or REFLECTING source.

So, how can gamma work in one specific circumstance but not work in an exactly symmetrical or, reciprocal, circumstance?

To my crude, but sometimes effective ( even a blind pig will find a nut SOMETIME ) thinking, either the speed of light is always observed by the same numbers in relative space, or is always observed by different numbers in absolute space, but I don't understand how the universe can run in absolute space one moment and then switch to relative space the next moment.

In summation, I don't understand how we could observe gamma to work in one reference frame but fail in another.

Perhaps the thing that is working is not gamma but does have similar numbers. Perhaps the idea that gamma is two way is wrong. Perhaps the idea that gamma is one way is wrong.

But, let us all recognize that we are all on the SAME playing field.

 

[Pete]

Antoon Lorentz was obviously infatuated by the Emitter Theory of light which claimed that light participated in the velocity of its source.

Was he? I've never heard that anywhere. Can you enlighten us?

His derivation of "gamma" was obviously based upon the idea that light was given a sideways velocity when reflected by a sideways moving mirror.

My impression was that his derivation was based firmly on an aether medium for light, which affected moving bodies in particular ways: length contraction, local time (simultaneity), "vibration of ions" (time dilation).

 

[DaleSpam]

Antoon Lorentz was obviously infatuated by the Emitter Theory of light which claimed that light participated in the velocity of its source... When Albert Einstein reflected upon the matter, shortly after having seriously flirted with Emitter Theory,

I don't know how this is a historical point against relativity. If anything I think it is an indication that those who were most influential in developing SR were not themselves biased in favor of SR and would have prefered some other explanation had it fit the facts. This is also true for many of the experiments that have confirmed SR. Many of them were in direct contradiction to the experimenter's hypothesis and therefore not likely to have been biased in favor of SR.

His derivation of "gamma" was obviously based upon the idea that light was given a sideways velocity when reflected by a sideways moving mirror.

Could you show more explicitly what you mean by this? If you are talking about a light clock traveling with velocity v in the x direction which is oriented with the light path in the y direction, and if you mean that the light is traveling with velocity vector of (v,c), then the gamma is 1 independent of v. If this is not what you are describing, please be more explicit.

The only way that Lorentz Relativity "gamma" and Einstein Relativity gamma can be validly operative is if the speed of light really is ALWAYS observed to be the same numbers, and this seems to be based on the totally questionable premise that light takes on the velocity of its emitting or REFLECTING source.

This comment seems confused (or at least confusing). In the first half you correctly point out that relativity depends critically on the constancy of c. In the second half you seem talk about an emitter theory as an explanation for the constancy of c, when no emitter theory of which I am aware results in a constant c.

So, how can gamma work in one specific circumstance but not work in an exactly symmetrical or, reciprocal, circumstance?

When does it not work?

To my crude, but sometimes effective ( even a blind pig will find a nut SOMETIME ) thinking, either the speed of light is always observed by the same numbers in relative space, or is always observed by different numbers in absolute space, but I don't understand how the universe can run in absolute space one moment and then switch to relative space the next moment.

Agreed.

In summation, I don't understand how we could observe gamma to work in one reference frame but fail in another.

Me neither.

-Dale

 

[Pete]

...either the speed of light is always observed by the same numbers in relative space, or is always observed by different numbers in absolute space...

Why are these the only options?
If I understand Lorentz's interpretation correctly (a big if, I admit), it is that the speed of light is always observed to be the same in absolute space.

Special Relativity is consistent with absolute space, by the way... it just implies that you can't distinguish betwen absolute rest and any other constant motion... which makes the idea of absolute rest somewhat useless.