You are apparently unaware that relativist time contraction (dilation, whatever) effects have been observed. All the obfuscation you attempt with various clock scenarios does not refute hard evidence resulting from various experiments. As posted by James R. many times, you do not understand enough about relativity and the supporting evidence to refute it or develop a viable replacement for it.. . . . time dilation is restricted to being an illusion a perception of motion and not a physical reality.
If clocks do not record this change for posterity then it is not real. Period.
Dinosaur said:MacM: Obscenity is the last resort of those frustrated by being wrong and unwilling to give up. Why not just admit that your beliefs are faith based like religious faith rather than being based on logical conclusions from supporting evidence? It is not a crime to have faith based beliefs. I probably have a few. Being an atheist, I probably have less than most people.
I will not quote the obscene ad hominem attacks on James R. They speak very loudly without being repeated. I cannot help but comment on the following post by you.You are apparently unaware that relativist time contraction (dilation, whatever) effects have been observed. All the obfuscation you attempt with various clock scenarios does not refute hard evidence resulting from various experiments. As posted by James R. many times, you do not understand enough about relativity and the supporting evidence to refute it or develop a viable replacement for it.
It is a waste of time to try to change the faith based view of people like MacM, but it sometimes seems worthwhile to try to affect the view of others who might be misled by him.
It amazes me that many intelligent people believe that mainstream physicists are either charlatans or fools (MacM is only one such). If there were glaring errors in Relativity, some mainstream physicist would have pointed them out in a peer reviewed journal and been given a Noble prize. Relativity has survived for almost 100 years. Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, or even lesser minds would surely have noticed a problem if people like MacM had valid criticisms.
Relativity will likely be replaced by a better theory, but it will never be shown to have the glaring errors claimed by the likes of MacM and other fanatics. When modern physics replaced Newtonian Physics, it was not due to glaring errors. Newtonian Physics was shown to be not applicable to conditions beyond the knowledge and measurement technology of those who developed its laws. Its laws could not be extrapolated beyond certain limits into territory unkown prior to the twentieth century. NASA still uses Newtonian gravitational equations for its space program, and nobody makes relativistic time/distance corrections for any but the most extreme situations. Similarly Relativity will never be shown to be incorrect. It will only be shown that its laws cannot be extrapolated beyond certain limits, as was the case for Newtonian Physics.
He and Pete have both ultimately, after many months of evasive responses to this issue, admitted my claims of net null time dilation is true. James even agreed that for a clock to show time dilation due to relative velocity alone violates Relativity.
Pete said:Mac, these statements are either lies or self-delusion.
Either way, they are falsehoods.
No. I'm denying that after many months of evasive responses to this issue, I admitted your claims of net null time dilation are true.Are you denying that you agreed that the A-B and B-A are equal and equate to "0" but that you then continued on to say but it is meaningless?
This assertion is particularly serious.James even agreed that for a clock to show time dilation due to relative velocity alone violates Relativity.
Pete said:No. I'm denying that after many months of evasive responses to this issue, I admitted your claims of net null time dilation are true.
There were no months of evasive response to that issue, because you only formulated it a short time ago. You appear to be mixing concepts in your head.
Your claims regarding your meaningless concept of "net null time dilation" are not something I agreed to.
This assertion is particularly serious.
James did not agree to that statement.
There was a misunderstanding at the time, which has been explained to you.
For you to continue to make that assertion is either a deliberate falsehood, or self delusion.
Side thought:
How can one tell if one is suffering a delusion?
Your "net null time dilation" concept is newly introduced.MacM said:1 - I have asserted for over 1 1/2 years here from day one that time dilation of clocks was a false concept. I can not understand your comment to the contrary.
It is up to you to read those clarifications and not ignore them.MacM said:2 - If you or James did not mean what you said (I have merely quoted James R's response and paraphrased yours), then it is up to you and he to clarify what you meant. It is not fair for you to assert I have misquoted or mis-stated your views. They are in writting as part of the record.
I certainly have no objection to somebody clarifying something that is or can be mis-interpreted but I do object to putting the blame on the reader that makes that interpretation of such satements.
Dealt with in the appropriate thread.3 - I suggest the best gage of delusion would be to have something which is clearly testable and not merely subjectively open to interpretation. In that regard let me point out James R, recent proclamation in QQ's thread:
Pete said:Your "net null time dilation" concept is newly introduced.
It is up to you to read those clarifications and not ignore them.
They are in writing as part of the record.
If you don't understand any clarification, please ask.
Dinosaur said:Give up fellows: MacM is the way and the truth and the light of the world. He has finally shown that Einstein and all the great minds of the twentieth century who accepted relativity were either deluded or part of a vast conspiracy to suppress the UniKEF theory brilliantly conceived by MacM.
I wonder if now he might deign to enlighten us on the errors inherent in Quantum theory. Now that he has shown Einstein to be a nut, why not put down Bohr, Heisenberg, et all?
From the stationary policeman the wheels appear to be moving slightly slower (ie revolutions per stationary policeman's second) than they are from the point of view of the policeman on the motorcycle. The reason is that time is running slower for the cycle-cop.3 - I suggest the best gage of delusion would be to have something which is clearly testable and not merely subjectively open to interpretation. In that regard let me point out James R, recent proclamation in QQ's thread:
Link to James R's Statement
This is a most obvious outright flaw of mental process.
Wheels rotate and power a speedometer. The driver of a car sees his speedometer read 100 Mph. The motorcycle cop behind the bill board with a high power camera will record a picture of your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph and the state trooper's cruiser that pulls up along side telling you to pull over looks through your window as he slowly passes you to cut you off and force you to stop, sees your speedometer as indicating 100 Mph.
Each of these views are frame dependant and none see anything but 100 Mph indicated on your speedometer. Clearly the wheel's Rpm have not altered as a function of relative velocity of frames as is being suggested by James.
Er, I don't believe that tests done at 100mph would yield usable results. The time dilation must be so miniscule as to be unmeasurable, certainly by human consciousness. Please don't tell me that you're basing your belief on the fact that real stationary policemen and cycling policemen see the same speed!!This is a proveable, and obvious test done at a variety of speeds millions of times each day. Now this situation is directly applicable to other relavistic issues and claims.
Well, sure if time dilation, spatial contraction and Special Relativity are false, then sure. But they are not false, and wheel rpm does change with relative velocity.If wheel Rpm does not change with relative velocity it becomes clear that issues of contraction, etc are mathematical artifacts and not physical realities.
Silas said:Anyway, my response was that JamesR's thread wasn't misleading, although it was as boring as hell. Isn't there any way at all to explain time dilation without those tedious equations? I got lost after the third line.
dinosaur said:It is a waste of time to try to change the faith based view of people like MacM, but it sometimes seems worthwhile to try to affect the view of others who might be misled by him.
It amazes me that many intelligent people believe that mainstream physicists are either charlatans or fools (MacM is only one such). If there were glaring errors in Relativity, some mainstream physicist would have pointed them out in a peer reviewed journal and been given a Noble prize. Relativity has survived for almost 100 years. Feynman, Hawking, Penrose, or even lesser minds would surely have noticed a problem if people like MacM had valid criticisms.
Did the above deserve the following?It is not a crime to have faith based beliefs. I probably have a few. Being an atheist, I probably have less than most people.
Following are my comments on the last part of the above from your post.You brandish your atheism as a badge of truth and honor.
. . . but by frawing over pesonalities tou toss at us with a casual flick of your unbiased atheistic heart.
Mr. Dinosaur, if you had some information that established a glaring error in the claims of the divinity of Mr. Jesus, would you write a letter to the Pope with any expectation that he would stand up to the world and declare that "we've made a horrible mistake." and then give the orders to all the piriests and nuns and bishops to "pack it in and lock it up folks, and I'm outta here" ?
Whatever one might think is implied/proven by the M/M experiment, all sorts of evidence seems to support various SR concepts derived from Einstein’’s interpretation of that experiment. In modern times experiments have verified that the counterintuitive results obtained via use of Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid. Objects moving at relativistic speeds act as though time and distance variables are different for them than for the stationary observer. All the arguments involving the twin paradox and other clock experiments are basically an argument relating to the validity of the Lorentz Transformation calculations.It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
Dinosaur said:GeistKeisel: You seized on the following posted by me and seemed to have read far more into my statements than intended.Did the above deserve the following?Following are my comments on the last part of the above from your post.I have not posted much (if any) physics or science to this thread. James R and others have done an excellent job of providing arguments counter to MacM beliefs, if not at this thread, then at others.
- While I believe in the neither the divinity of Christ nor the existence of god, I have no expectation of ever finding compelling evidence or a proof relating to such issues. Faith based belief rather than proof is all that any intelligent atheist or intelligent believer can ever hope to have. I believe that observable evidence is consistent with (not a proof of) my atheist view, and a religious person similarly believes that the observable evidence supports his view.
If I thought I thought I had evidence refuting some issue of Christian (or some other) theology, I would not expect it to be accepted by the leaders of a religious sect. I would not waste my time presenting any such evidence. The only time I ever argue with those who believe in some religion is when they insist on trying to convert me.
I consider the analogy silly. Unlike a religious leader, I would expect a mainstream scientist to be swayed by valid evidence. If knowledgeable physicists did not accept my arguments, I would assume that I had done a bad job of presenting it or that there was some error in my conclusions.
It is my opinion that MacM either ignores or does not understand the arguments of those who have a credible knowledge of SR/GR, making it a waste of time to argue with him on these issues. I remember arguing with him in a lengthy thread about an illusion relating to apparent motion, and I think I have argued with him to no avail on other occasions.
Many, many years ago, I managed to pass an undergraduate which included SR. I remember being convinced by the logic supporting the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation calculations, but felt that the implications were counter intuitive. Since then, I have seldom had the patience to make a detailed analysis of discussions of SR.
SR has been accepted for about 100 years. I just do not think that thought experiments involving twin journeys, or multiple clocks or other simple scenarios could show that there is something wrong with the theory. Something far more subtle and difficult to comprehend will be required.
Mainstream physicists are neither charlatans nor fools. There is a lot of evidence supporting SR. For example, check the article at the following URL.
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.v.../michelson.html The following can be found there if you read far enough into the article. Whatever one might think is implied/proven by the M/M experiment, all sorts of evidence seems to support various SR concepts derived from Einstein’’s interpretation of that experiment. In modern times experiments have verified that the counterintuitive results obtained via use of Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid. Objects moving at relativistic speeds act as though time and distance variables are different for them than for the stationary observer. All the arguments involving the twin paradox and other clock experiments are basically an argument relating to the validity of the Lorentz Transformation calculations.
[/quote=dinosaur]Either the Lorentz Transformation calculations are valid or they are not. The experimental evidence supports the Lorentz Transformation calculations. Verbal descriptions of various clock experiments accompanied by different calculations disagree with those calculations, but can be made consistent with intuitive notions. I accept the mathematics and the opinions of experts rather than my intuition.
|L________________M__________________R|
| L|<--------------0--M-----------------> | R|