ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags relativity , special relativity

Reply
Old 27th April 2009, 06:41 AM   #1
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Pragmatic Failure of Special Relativity

Some Hodge-Podge thought for your Comments.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX

PRAGMATIC FAILURE
OF
SPECIAL RELATIVITY
--------------------------------
ABSTRACT

For over one hundred years persons have challenged the Special Theory of Relativity. Some due to a lack of understanding of what it actually says and others by misapplying mathematics. Many however have presented challenges with sound evidence which falsifies Special Relativity but it is ignored.

This effort avoids the complex arguements of relavistic mathematics because it indeed has high utility and is highly accurate under certain conditions and applications. An effort is made rather by pointing out what one must accept IF one subscribes to the theory as a physical reality and where a simple lack of understanding of physical reality may be the basis for the flawed concept.

FALSE PREMIS

Every theory has some basic premis or assumptions. In the case of Special Relativity the premis or assumption that may be responsible for the error is based on actual measurements:

"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.

Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light. More on that distinction later but for now lets consider physical aspects of Special Relativity which relativists choose to ignore.

PHYSICAL AFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL RELATIVE VELOCITY

Since the relavistic argument is that either of two inertial moving observers with a relative velocity to each other can be assumed at rest and the other having all motion, such that when "A" is at rest "B's" clock runs slow according to "A" and distance between "A" and "B" is seen foreshortened by "B".

That is the purported equivelence of relative velocity produces two distinctly different physical affects to the two observers purely as a function of each being considered at rest. That is if we consider "B" at rest then "A's" clock must run slower than "B" and "A" then see's distance to "B" as being less than "B" measures to "A".

The initial claim by Einstein about the equivelence of inertial frames and that either can be considered at rest results in the paradox generally refered to as the "Twin Paradox". That is two twins, one that stays at home on Earth and another that goes out and travels at high relative velocity in space is to be younger than his stay at home twin when he returns. But the symmetry of either being at rest means that according to the space traveler he expects his stay at home twin to be younger since according to him he has been at rest and his twin has been zooming around the galaxy riding on Earth.

The "Twin Paradox" exemplifies the fact that if you do accept that inertial motion can be assumed at rest then "A's" clock is ticking slower than "B's" clock concurrently with "B's" clock ticking slower than "A's" clock.

This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".

ENTER FUDGE FACTOR

The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.

"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion. So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.

SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.

Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.

Simply put relative velocity means neither, either one or both have had changes in absolute velocity in the universe. They say there is no absolute rest reference and they are only partly correct. They assume that "Absence of Evidence" is the same as "Evidence of Absence" and that simply is not a scientific fact.

But the bottom line is when two observers are at relative inertial rest and one accelerates that observer makes changes in his absolute velocity in a universal sense even though we can only measure velocity relative to some other point. The fact is the observer that did not experience F=ma and remained at rest can have NO physical changes because there has been no physical cause.

That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.

Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality. The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.

That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.

Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.

Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.

They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. These cannot be considered physical facts.

It is utter stupidity.

DISCUSSION

Since as it will be shown that Lorentz Contraction of space is problematic and never has been measured. I choose time dilation to be the actual physical reaction to motion.

What does that mean for physics? It means that universally relative velocity is symmetrical but locally it is not. That is from a persepective of absolute rest all relative motions are symmetrical and distance does not change. However, from absolute rest one can be measured to have greater velocity than another observer to which you have a relative velocity and you will have the slower time tick rate than the other.

That would appear to be counter intuitive because we have been raised to think of relative velocity in absolute terms universally. If you are driving down the road at 60 Mph and veer off the road into a parked car we claim that each vehicle has a common relative velocity of 60 Mph.

However, it appears that is only true at everyday velocities and that at relavistic velocities our locally measured velocities will differ because v = d / t. Distance remains fixed but each t is recorded differently by the respective observers.

Remember that velocity is a composite calculated result of the ratio of two physical factors. Time and Distance. What relativity does is assume a common calculation of velocity and therein cause a physical change in reality. i.e. d = v*t when in fact velocity will not be the same to each observer because we have stipulated that one clock ticks slower than the other.

Therefore if you retain this physical assertion (which conforms with measurements and observation of clocks with relative motion) then you have as an example where relative velocity is 0.866c t2 = t1/2 or t1 = 2*t2.

v1 = d /t1 and v2 = d / t2 hence v2 = 2*v1.

Lets move into space and set up a test course. First while at common rest fabricate a cable which has mile markers attached ever 5,280 feet. The cable is of a known and long length. I then fire up my rocket and stretch the cable out between us.

Now I release the cable and fire my return rockets and achieve 0.1c such that my clock now is only ticking 99.4987% as fast as yours. As I pass the mile markers I notice that they are passing by at a rate, and I'm approaching you, at v = d / 0.994987t = 0.1005 c !

While you remained stationary and will see me passing miles markers at v=d/t=0.1c. When I arrive we compare clocks and calculate that the times are correct if and ONLY if distance did not change.

An analogy of what Special Relativity does is given by the following example.

EXAMPLE

You live in town "A" and it is a known 60 miles to town "B". Your friend comes to visit and doesn't know the area. He also doesn't know that his dashboard clock is defective and is only ticking at 50% the rate of your clock and the atomic clock at the NBS.

He calls you and tells you he is leaving town "B". You both look at your clocks. He is driving precisely 60 Mph but his Speed-O-Meter is broken. However his Odometer is working correctly.

When he arrives one hour later by your clock you congratulate him on making good time having averaged 60 Mph for the trip.

He says "heck no I was going 120 Mph because it only took 30 minutes to get here and it was 60 miles".

Special Relativity wrongfully asserts that both clock standards are equal and that he accumulated less time because he traveled less distance. It is assinine and easily disproved.

We must stop comparing accumulated time and compare tick rates while in motion. If tick rates are measured dilated (with doppler compensation) then distance has not changed. If tick rates remain concurrent (in sync) with doppler compensation then distance must have changed.

ABSURD CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING SPECIAL RELATIVITY

1 - If you accept Special Relativity then you must accept that given sufficient velocity when you accelerate away from something you get closer to it because Loretnz Contraction of space proceeds faster than your recesssion velocity.

2 - An observer riding a particle in a particle accelerator that goes from 0 to 0.866c in 1 milli-second causes the 4.3 lyr distance to Alpha Centuri collapse to 2.15 lyr in 0.001 seconds. There are 31,536,000 seconds per year or the particle only took 3.2E-8 years to cause the change.

In other words dimensions changed at 2.15 lyr / 3.2E-8 Yr = 67,802,400 c !!
Relativists try to obscur this fact and save Special Relativity by mathematically claiming the particle observer doesn't see the change that it is hidden behind an event horizon and isn't seen until light from 4.3 lyr arrives.

This Texas Two Step just doesn't hold up because if I continue toward Alpha Centuri I will collide with it even if it were hidden behind an optical event horizon. Dare they argue you don't arrive when distance has been reduced to zero!!!!!

Dare they argue that you cannot see something 1 meeter away for several light years just because to do so falisifies Special Relativity.

Spatial contraction is either a physical reality or it is not. You can't claim it exists then ignore the consequences.

3 - If you really believe in Special Relativity then the accelerating expansion of the universe is in fact a deceleration because at the relavistic velocities near the observable edge Lorentz Contraction has to be reversed. That is a decelerating expansion causing Lorentz Expansion from previously contracted space due to a higher velocity in the past.

VELOCITY ADDITION

Einstein would have us believe that 2 + 2 = 3 just because he can make a closed mathematical loop by ignoring physical changes created by his own theory. That is claim a clock ticks slow but then claim it has the same time standard as another clock hence space (distance) must have contracted to account for the differential in accumulated time in the same test.

The fact is there have been hundreds of objects in space measured to have
velocities that are not only greater but much greater than v = c. Relativists have worked overtime to find a means of invalidating such data.

The primary tactic has been to show that for relavistic motion in a narrow line of sight can result in measurement of change which exceeds v = c. There is a problem with that defense of Special Relativity.

They ignore the fact that only an extreme minority of such observations are
accompanied by red or blue shift, meaning they are not line of sight motions but are proper velocities of objects moving orthogonal to our line of sight.

What is likely to be the case is that v = c in the line of sight is a velocity limit of observation because objects undergo Lorentz Contraction and dimensionally cease to exist in our physical realm at or above v = c.

That is our physical universe consists of objects v< c to our unknown absolute velocity but when we move and have relative velocity to other objects in our universe we actually have different universes; albiet an overwhelming amount of the universes are common.

However once you reach or exceed v = c to all matter that existed in your universe while inertial before your acceleration you will now exist in a completely different universe at a different absolute universal energy level.

RELATIVITY OF SIMULTANEITY

The bottom line is that we live in a 3D world where time is an attribute of an
energetic space. Ours is a "Dynamic Present" in "Absolute Time". That is time is a measure of change of energy states of objects and is not an independant dimension or linked to space other than as a result of energy flow which forms space itself.

Pragmatically it is clear that our present consists of every event information in the universe that arrives collectively at any given instant to our ordinate point and creates the present.

For example if you live on Earth and I on the moon and we have synchronized
clocks. If I detonate a flash charge at t=0 it is part of my present but that is an event in your future dynamic present by 1.28 seconds.

If you then set off a flash charge automatically and simultaneously when you receive my flash signal then my flash and your flash are both part of your dynamuic present. But my flash is in my past by 1.28 seconds and your flash is in my future by 1.28 seconds.

It is interesting then that for our dynamic presents when we change our absolute spatial ordinate points by moving we must automatically enter both the Past and Future simultaneously relative to our original origin.

GPS FALSIFIES SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Relativists like to have it both ways. They routinely assert (brag) that GPS proves Special Relativity that clock time must employ both General Relativity and Special Relativity corrections to function,. Yet when I point out the following:

**********************GPS Calculations *********************

GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared =
1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss and may be disregarded.

It is vital to note that 7.2 micro-seconds is the correct answer and that the 5.58 micro-sceonds computed using Special Relativity is INCORRECT.

************************************************** ******

To which the relativists two step and claim that Special Relativity can't be used because it is a General Relativity problem due to gravity and rotational motion. That orbit is not an inertial condition because in orbit you are under constant acceleration!

At the same time free fall in a gravity field is claimed to be inertial even though observers are accelerating and orbit is also considered a form of free-fall.

So they flip flop on their definitions and applicability depending on the challenge presented.

The fact is that GPS *** DOES NOT *** use Special Relativity at all. It makes a velocity compensation but it is based on orbit velocity to a common relative rest reference. A Lorentz Relativity not Einstein's Special Relativity is used.!!!

i.e. - a locally preferred common rest frame which is prohibited by Special Relativity. It employs the center of the earth as it's reference for both surface clock velocity and the GPS satellite orbit velocity.

GPS DOES NOT employ V1 - V2 or relative velocity between clocks which is Special Relativity.!!!!

FYI the surface velocity changes with latitude; however, it just happens that the Earth is an Oblate Sphereoid and the difference in surface distance to the center of the Earth has a gravitational offset value precisely equal to the change in velocity by relavistic mathematics.

Such that is latitude has no bearing on surface clock tick rates. Altitude however does.

ALTERNATIVE

It appears that light may in fact merely be something moving faster than v = c in a vacuum. That is light is really nothing more than Cerenkov Radiation at the maximum EM velocity. It seems coincidental that Lorentz Contraction of matter also occur at v = c such that one can envision light as a form of release of dimensional binding energy.

In that perspective an observers relative motion to a source changes the time and location of photon production making it appear to be invariant when in fact each observer is observing a different photon. Every photon is being generated as a quantum energy function relative to Lorentz collapse of dimension.

That is photons do not travel or have velocity but are pertabations in the fabric of flowing space which has "0" velocity locally at an ordinate point of origin but has virtually unlimited velocity at the edge of the universe distance away.

Therefore at every ordinate point there is an unlimited range of spatial motion as a carrier of the light source pertabation. Observers see the photon being generated only on the v = c spatial carrier but the pertabation exists on all spatial flow such that every observers see the same light velocity but is not seeing the same light photon.

This may sound complex but it really isn't. If you see the origin of the universe as a Big Rip instead of a Big Bang you eliminate the requirement for an inflationary period and you eliminate the absurd singularity of the Big Bang.

The origin may be one of borrowed energy such that there has been no actual creation. We exist by ex-nihilo bifurcation of (N)othingness into (S)omethingness.

i.e. (N)----------------------> (+S) + (-S) = (+1) + (-1) = 0

UniKEF Theory of Gravity envisions the spatial flow as being the cause of gravity by attenuation of flowing space denser mass. It predicts that the apparent measured fact that we are at the center of the unverse is due to attenuation of the field within itself thereby forming an energy domain limit to our observed universe but the universe extends well beyond our observation. As we move the edge of our universe move with us retaining the domain limit in lyr.

That is space is free flowing "Unbound" energy and mass is compacted space by space curving into relavistic orbs forming particles. The compaction factor being c^2 and the origin of E = mc^2.

In this view a 2 inch diameter ball of pure mass. i.e. 2.19 pounds/inch cubed = 9.17E13 pound ball, contains the same energy as a spatial sphere of 9,470 miles in diameter. I suspect that we will find that Lorentz Contraction of space is in comperable proportion.

That is where mass may contract to zero dimension at v = c relative to the observer while space for an observer actually in motion may only decrease by current Lorenz / c. Instead of the universe collapsing to zero at v = c it will shrink by 3E-7% or 0.000000003 or 1/333,333,333.



Dan Keith McCoin
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 06:50 AM   #2
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Some Hodge-Podge thought for your Comments.
A lot of Hodge-Podge, very little thought. It's wrong more or less without exception from beginning to end.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 06:53 AM   #3
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
I skimmed the first few paragraphs and found several quite wrong statements - no need to waste time reading further. In your own words: "For over one hundred years persons have challenged the Special Theory of Relativity. Some due to a lack of understanding of what it actually says and others by misapplying mathematics."


Originally Posted by MacM View Post
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.
First, learn the difference between "effect" and "affect". Second, you're wrong - the Sagnac effect is completely consistent with that postulate when it's correctly stated. The speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames.

In your own words: "...a lack of understanding of what it actually says".

Quote:
The "Twin Paradox" exemplifies the fact that if you do accept that inertial motion can be assumed at rest then "A's" clock is ticking slower than "B's" clock concurrently with "B's" clock ticking slower than "A's" clock.

This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".
This one is wrong for an even more basic reason, and it's a conundrum only to you. Please tell us precisely what the symmetry is between one twin that remains on earth without ever accelerating, and another that climbs in a rocket, accelerates away for a while, turns around, accelerates back, and accelerates again to land on earth. We're waiting.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 08:46 AM   #4
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,990
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
...we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer...
I think I found your mistake.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 09:13 AM   #5
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.
No. To quote wiki.
Quote:
Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.
Quote:
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light.
No. We understand light very well.

Quote:
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".
No. Counter-intuitive works reasonably well.

Quote:
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.
No. This quite clearly isn't an untenable conflict of the equivalence of inertial frames since one of the frames isn't inertial.

Quote:
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion.
No. F=/=ma in relativity.

Quote:
So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.
No. There is only one inertial traveller, the one that stays at home. Whether or not he's at rest or not depends on who is viewing him.

Quote:
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.
No. That does not follow.

Quote:
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.
No, this just doesn't make sense. Inertial =/= at rest, in general.

Quote:
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.
Cosmic ray muons clearly falsify this. If its only an illusion, why do we observe that a cosmic ray muon travelling with high relative velocity has a longer lifetime than a stationary one? The illusion alters the laws of physics?

Quote:
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality.
Now you're contradicting yourself.

Quote:
The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.
Err, no. If time dilation is a reality then length contraction must also be a reality.

Quote:
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.
There is no "correct" time. That's kinda the point.

Quote:
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time.
No it does not. It applies two sets of time standards to two different clocks.

Quote:
They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.
There is no "resting clock standard". That's the whole point.

Quote:
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.

They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. These cannot be considered physical facts.

It is utter stupidity.
What's utter stupidity, imho, is writing a long essay about something you don't understand for no apparent reason.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 09:14 AM   #6
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by MacM View Post

The initial claim by Einstein about the equivelence of inertial frames and that either can be considered at rest results in the paradox generally refered to as the "Twin Paradox". That is two twins, one that stays at home on Earth and another that goes out and travels at high relative velocity in space is to be younger than his stay at home twin when he returns. But the symmetry of either being at rest means that according to the space traveler he expects his stay at home twin to be younger since according to him he has been at rest and his twin has been zooming around the galaxy riding on Earth.
The same argument can be "used" to disprove Newtonian mechanics. "Newton said that his first and second laws apply to all inertial reference frames. Consider two twins, one standing on the ground and one belted into a racecar. The racecar zooms away and crashes into a pillar. Now, both twins will say they were at rest the whole time, but nevertheless the second twin has a concussion and the first twin doesn't so the symmetry is obviously broken somehow which means NEWTON WAS WRONG"

Inertial reference frames are not a fudge factor; they're a basic, basic, basic building block of Newtonian mechanics AND Special Relativity AND GR.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:23 PM   #7
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
The same argument can be "used" to disprove Newtonian mechanics. "Newton said that his first and second laws apply to all inertial reference frames. Consider two twins, one standing on the ground and one belted into a racecar. The racecar zooms away and crashes into a pillar. Now, both twins will say they were at rest the whole time, but nevertheless the second twin has a concussion and the first twin doesn't so the symmetry is obviously broken somehow which means NEWTON WAS WRONG"

Inertial reference frames are not a fudge factor; they're a basic, basic, basic building block of Newtonian mechanics AND Special Relativity AND GR.
Hello Ben,

Thanks for your comments. It is a fudge factor in that relativists still want to claim mere relative velocity causes relavistic changes. Clearly relative velocity doesnot and cannot do anything in terms of physical change.

Relative velocity to the pillar was not mere relative velocity but force induced velocity; i.e the consequence of acceleration relative to the pillar in an absolute change sense.

You may not know the absolute velocity but acceleration is a change in that value and relative veocity to all things in the universe change as a consequence.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:33 PM   #8
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
A lot of Hodge-Podge, very little thought. It's wrong more or less without exception from beginning to end.
Actually I'm very unimpressed by your response. It shows little actual consideration and evenless real understanding.

Perhaps you disagree with the GPS calculations, or the fact that the original (and still touted) claim that "Relative Velocity" causes physical change.

Go ahead put your reputation in front of your verbal assualts. Try being specific at least we will know if you have any clue about the subject.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:44 PM   #9
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
I skimmed the first few paragraphs and found several quite wrong statements - no need to waste time reading further. In your own words: "For over one hundred years persons have challenged the Special Theory of Relativity. Some due to a lack of understanding of what it actually says and others by misapplying mathematics."


As to the other post I just made - "Ditto" You only show your comprehension by actually making a statement with some useful content.


First, learn the difference between "effect" and "affect". Second, you're wrong - the Sagnac effect is completely consistent with that postulate when it's correctly stated. The speed of light is constant only in inertial reference frames.

In your own words: "...a lack of understanding of what it actually says".

FYI: I most certainly know about Sagnac and about the wiggle room relativists like to use to get around the physicas issue.

But more importantly I suggest it is you that might need a bit of refresher in english.

Webster:

EFFECT: "anything brought about by a cause or agent"

AFFECT: "to have an effect on, influence or produce change in..."

There is nothing wrong in my use of the term affect in this context. Yes it is referred to as the Sagnac Effect and if you really understood english as well as I then you can see that the "Sagnac EFFECT has an "AFFECT"


This one is wrong for an even more basic reason, and it's a conundrum only to you. Please tell us precisely what the symmetry is between one twin that remains on earth without ever accelerating, and another that climbs in a rocket, accelerates away for a while, turns around, accelerates back, and accelerates again to land on earth. We're waiting.
Wait no longer. I never said and know tht SR claims the symmetry is broken by the one that switches frames (i.e. - accelerates). That is in fact my point. SR now must rely on an actual F=ma-----v = at velocity and not mere "Relative Velocity" to become mathematically correct.

SR is no longer a "Relative Velocity" function, even though relativists choose to ignore that fact. It is an import distinction since they now actually rely on actual motion induced velocity or what is a change in some absolute velocity
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:46 PM   #10
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think I found your mistake.
Ditto on the issue of remarks with useful content. You show me nothing here.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:52 PM   #11
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Pragmatic Success of Special Relativity
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:53 PM   #12
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Actually I'm very unimpressed by your response. It shows little actual consideration and evenless real understanding.
No, actually what it shows is little patience for idiocy.

The simple fact that you consider SR relevant to the non-intertial frame of the twin paradox illustrates that you understand neither SR nor GR.

One of the conclusions drawn from GR is that an object subject to acceleration, whether that acceleration is gravitational or otherwise, experiences less than an object in an inertial frame. This can be clearly demonstrated in the so-called Twin Paradox; the accelerating twin is the younger when they are finally brought together.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:55 PM   #13
Dorfl
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Webster:

EFFECT: "anything brought about by a cause or agent"

AFFECT: "to have an effect on, influence or produce change in..."
Ooh! I just had an XKCD moment: http://xkcd.com/326/
Dorfl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:55 PM   #14
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
There is nothing wrong in my use of the term affect in this context. Yes it is referred to as the Sagnac Effect and if you really understood english as well as I then you can see that the "Sagnac EFFECT has an "AFFECT"
So now we know you're a liar as well as a quack. Unfortunately for you, your post is still right there (that's the funny thing about internet fora, isn't it?). And it doesn't say "Sagnac Effect", it says "PHYSICAL AFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL RELATIVE VELOCITY" and "An exception to that is the Sagnac affect."

Why is it that all physics cranknuts both

1) have extraordinarily poor language skills, and

2) will never admit when they've made a mistake?

Quote:
SR now must rely on an actual F=ma-----v = at velocity and not mere "Relative Velocity" to become mathematically correct.
I have no idea what you're talking about (and neither will anyone else, because it's nonsense). Special relativity is simply two postulates, neither of which you appear to understand. Both the statement and resolution to the twin "paradox" follows from them and them alone.

What's your goal in posting here? Are you trying to learn something, or convince others of something? If it's the latter, I'd advise you to give up after a start like that. More posts will just make you look even more foolish. If it's the former, try taking a less confrontational attitude.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 12:59 PM   #15
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,906
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Hello Ben,

Thanks for your comments. It is a fudge factor in that relativists still want to claim mere relative velocity causes relavistic changes. Clearly relative velocity doesnot and cannot do anything in terms of physical change.
This is not a fudge factor, it relates to the way space and time interact. You are thinking of them as far to seperate, time is just an other dimention that you convert to the rest by the factor of c. It is not a physical change that they have happen to them, but a change in the way that you measure their space time coordinates like the seperation between to points in space and time.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:00 PM   #16
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,906
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Actually I'm very unimpressed by your response. It shows little actual consideration and evenless real understanding.

Perhaps you disagree with the GPS calculations, or the fact that the original (and still touted) claim that "Relative Velocity" causes physical change.
GPS calculations take both effects from special and general relativity into account. These are some of the best tested and most accurate scientific theories that exist.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:02 PM   #17
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
 
Holler Hoojer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 422
MacM,
Would you like a recommended reading list? Perhaps we can show you how to learn STR if you have a little patience and several years to spare.
Holler Hoojer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:02 PM   #18
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,990
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Ditto on the issue of remarks with useful content. You show me nothing here.
Are you sure about that?

You say, "...we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer... ". In this statement, you talk about a "universal absolute" that is "relative" to an observer.

These two conditions, "absolute" and "relative", are mutally exclusive. No conclusion you draw from such a flawed premise can possibly be correct. Until you reconcile this fundamental contradiction in your premise, everything that follows from it will be wrong.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:05 PM   #19
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
An example of the errors in your OP: "Loretnz Contraction of space" does not exist.

The Lorentz contraction of lengths of a moving object relative to an outside observer does exist. This does not state that the distance that an object travels contracts. It states that the length of the object contracts according to the outside observer. All observers in SR agree on the distance that an object travels.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:23 PM   #20
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,394
I think I understand what MacM is trying to suggest. His claim is that the effects in Relativity that are generally considered to be caused by relative velocity, are actually delayed effects of the accelerations needed to impart those relative velocities in the first place.

However, it gets dicey from there. If a spaceship flies past a space dock at 2/3 C (both of them on inertial courses, neither of them accelerating) and the spaceship observes that the space dock is too short for the ship to fit into, and the space dock workers observe that the dock is plenty long enough for the ship to fit into, how is this explained by the fact that at some indeterminable time in the past, the ship (or maybe the dock) accelerated? Isn't it more straightforward to interpret the cause of that difference in measurement as being due to the difference in velocity that exists at the time the measurements are made -- that is, due to Lorentz contraction as currently understood in Special Relativity?

MacM, perhaps it would clarify the gist of your claim if you were to describe an experiment for which your theory would predict a different outcome than Relativity theory. Or, if there are no such experiments, explain why your interpretation of what's "really going on" in such cases is more useful or a better explanation than offered by current physics.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:29 PM   #21
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Respectfully,
Myriad
You're much too polite - you make the rest of us (i.e., me) look bad.

Anyway, good luck.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 01:34 PM   #22
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
MacM, perhaps it would clarify the gist of your claim if you were to describe an experiment for which your theory would predict a different outcome than Relativity theory.
I think he's already offered one. From the OP:

Quote:
GPS FALSIFIES SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Relativists like to have it both ways. They routinely assert (brag) that GPS proves Special Relativity that clock time must employ both General Relativity and Special Relativity corrections to function,. Yet when I point out the following:

**********************GPS Calculations *********************

GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared =
1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss and may be disregarded.

It is vital to note that 7.2 micro-seconds is the correct answer and that the 5.58 micro-sceonds computed using Special Relativity is INCORRECT.
Of course, the math appears to be gibberish (and to be based on a whole slew of oversimplifying assumptions; for example, he's ignoring the fact that both the satellite and the ground-based clock are under gravity, so SR is not appropriate) but I'll let sol clearcut that particular forest....
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 02:03 PM   #23
Thabiguy
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 804
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.
Oh my God.

Please find someone to introduce you to the concept of vectors.
Thabiguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 02:47 PM   #24
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
**********************GPS Calculations *********************

GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).
I confess that I didn't follow a lot of the logic, but are you saying that there really is an absolute reference frame, and it's centered on the Earth?

Originally Posted by MacM View Post
The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.
Well, no . .. as the other poster said, it's all about the vectors.

If GPS was in equatorial orbit, the relative velocity between a spot on the ground and a GPS satellite would be constantly changing - sometimes they'd be moving the same direction, sometimes opposite directions, usually something in between.

Of course, GPS isn't in an equatorial orbit. It's inclined 55 degrees, which makes the relative motion more complicated and dependent on the relationship between the specific ground location and the RAAN and Anomaly of the orbit.

"Relative speed," which is what you seem to be talking about, would be the magnitude of the relative velocity vector. It would be constantly varying.

ETA: Actually, for that last bit, it depends on what we mean by "relative speed." The magnitide of the relative velocity vector would be one meaning, but the rate that the two things are moving closer/farther is another perfectly good meaning. For the GPS sat/ground station, the magnitude of the relative velocity vector will always be a few km/s; the rate at which they're closing/separating will pass through zero from time to time. Just for completeness.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Last edited by dasmiller; 27th April 2009 at 03:48 PM.
dasmiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 02:59 PM   #25
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
I confess that I didn't follow a lot of the logic, but are you saying that there really is an absolute reference frame, and it's centered on the Earth?
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Geocentrism returns.

I wish I were being sarcastic in the paragraph above.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:02 PM   #26
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,990
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
I confess that I didn't follow a lot of the logic, but are you saying that there really is an absolute reference frame, and it's centered on the Earth?
As I've already tried to point out to him twice already, he's actually saying that there's an abosolute reference frame relative to the center of the earth.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:22 PM   #27
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Tubbythin,

Well Kudos for at least making a series of responses compared to the curt attitudes by some others. Lets see just how germain they are.

Originally Posted by MacM
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.


Tubbythin "No. To quote wiki": Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

Perhaps I miss your point but your quote seems to repeat what I have just said.

Quote MacM:
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light.

Tubbythin "No. We understand light very well."

You think you do. I think you are allowing yourself to be bamfuzzeled. It is easy to envision light being generated as an energy function (i.e. simular to Cerenkov Radiation) in a multi-energetic flowing spatial medium than be invariantly propogated in a static medium. Your inability (or unwillingness) to consider that possibility means you are being blind sided by your preconcieved ideas and understandings.

Quote MacM:
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".

Tubbythin "No. Counter-intuitive works reasonably well."

It actually doesn't work at all. It merely grants those citing it the latitude to ignore their shortcomings and continue to pretend that know more than everyonelse.

Quote MacM:
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.

Tubbythin "No. This quite clearly isn't an untenable conflict of the equivalence of inertial frames since one of the frames isn't inertial."

Again you cleverly miss the point. It was my very point that one is not inertial - HINT "Mere Relative Velocity" is no longer a cause of change, acceleration (non-inertial Frame Switching) is.

Quote MacM:
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion.

Tubbythin "No. F=/=ma in relativity."

You still attempt to avoid the issue. The issue is not how F=ma is dealt with in relativity but the fact that to switch frames one must accelerate (i.e - become non-inertial and break the mere relative velocity symmetry.

Quote MacM:
So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.

Tubbythin "No. There is only one inertial traveller, the one that stays at home. Whether or not he's at rest or not depends on who is viewing him."

Once again you attempt to confuse the issue. I most certainly know about inertial rest, etc. My point is that in many cases you do not have knowledge of who accelerated or who accelerated the most. Further what is at issue is who will appear dilated (i.e. - have the slower running clock) While you will choose to deny an absolute frame the simple fact is one can (and should) assume it and from it both clocks may well have absolute velocity and yet be inertial. In such case they will have what appears to them (in absence of the absolute reference) to be equal relative velocity in which case you could not mathematically conclude who's clock is running slower by relativity. But the FACT is one may be and it will be the one that has had the greatest acceleration x time history. Are you going to stick your foot in your mouth and deny that?

Quote MacM:
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.

Tubbythin "No. That does not follow."

Inadequate and incorrect response.

Quote MacM:
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.

Tubbythin "No, this just doesn't make sense. Inertial =/= at rest, in general."

This is hilarious. You attempt to deny real motion caused by an acceleration force breaking the inertial condition by refering to inertial = rest.???? What ever is your point?

Quote MacM:
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.

Tubbythin "Cosmic ray muons clearly falsify this. If its only an illusion, why do we observe that a cosmic ray muon travelling with high relative velocity has a longer lifetime than a stationary one? The illusion alters the laws of physics?"


Unfortunately your example says nothing about the issue. You do understand that cosmic muons have high velocity and assuming it is greater than ours and we are not running into them (since they come from all vectors) they would be expected to suffer time dilation.

Now lets see if you happen to know that a study was done where the speed of the earth toward other galaxies was computed correctly, according to other methods ( approx 300km/sec) by using cosmic muon ansitrophy to Earth! . The study conclusion was it is more accurate to compute using an absolute velocity of the muon than to use the muon relative velocity to the earth.!!! .



Quote MacM:
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality.

Tubbythin "Now you're contradicting yourself."

No contridiction what-so-ever. If you have any reading comprehension ability at all you would have seen that my discussion is with respect to the duality of physical affects caused by a common cause according to relativity. This statement merely states a fact. Time dilation has been repeatedly measured and hence can be considered a physical reality.

Quote MacM:
The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.

Tubbythin "Err, no. If time dilation is a reality then length contraction must also be a reality."

Your inability to read english is showing more clearly. This presentation points out rather elequently that if you first assume a physical reality with respect to one clock you cannot then ignore that fact when computing the view of another observer. Either the clock ticks slow physically or it is merely a perception. What follows makes the point quite clear. At least if you actually read and comprehend and don't just turn a deaf ear and recite what you have read elsewhere.


Quote MacM:
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.

Tubby "There is no "correct" time. That's kinda the point."

Not an answer but an attempt to avoid the issue. Lets talk physics not rhetoric. You cannot prove a theory by quoting the theory.

Quote MacM:
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. \

Tubbythin "No it does not. It applies two sets of time standards to two different clocks".

Incorrect. It applies two different time standards to both clocks as a function of who is considered at rest or in motion. In one view they claim the clock ticks slower than the resting observer's clock. Then in the other moving observers view they claim his second is comperable , that is 1 second is still 1 second and hence the fact that he accumulates less time for the trip is that distance foreshortened due to Lorentz Contraction of space. IF YOU MAINTIAN THE DILATED TICK RATE CLAIM BY THE RESTING OBSERVER THEN THE TRIP TIME IS ONLY VALID IF DISTANCE DOES NOT CHANGE. Only by ignoring the dilated moving clock can spatial contraction be claimed. You want to have two different physical affects induced into physics as a mere matter of perception and ignore one set of physical affects claimed due to motion to assert a different affect as a function of observer perception. THAT IS NOT PHYSICS.


Quote MacM:
They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.

Tubbythin "There is no "resting clock standard". That's the whole point."

[COLOR="red]What???? You got to be kidding. You state that there is a tick rate difference between clocks i.e. the moving clock is dilated and hence the resting clock tick rate is the comparative standard. It is not an absolute standard because you are not operating on an absolute scale but it is the standrd by which you declare the moving clock dilated. -- Shsss!. You now have two distinct clock tick rate the resting clock is assumed = 1.0000 and the dilated clock ticks slower by gamma function. I would think you would have known that.[/color]


Quote MacM:
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.

Tubbythin "They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. [COLOR="blue]These cannot be considered physical facts. [/color]

They apply a common velocity. Right. That is what I have said and it is physically incorrect to do so. That has been the point of the discussion. It is where relativity goes wrong. Nothing in my presentation claims time dilation is false. To the contrary it is realbut the issue is what is the cause and what is the consequence for physics and relativity. Remember "Velocity" is a calculation based on the ratio to two physical properties, delta distance / delta time. You start by asserting a physical affect "delta time" is less and then ignore that when claiming a common relative velocity, you have switched time standards in the middle of your physical analysis. The fact is IF time dilation is a physical reality then trip time can only be correct if distance does not change because velocity is a calculated value based on the two physical properties. You pull the bait and switch on time standards to assert the common relative velocity which then creates the secondary physical affect required to make accumulated time come out correct. You want to claim that the person will compute the same velocity because his clock is running at the same UN-dilated rate as the resting clock and he travels less distance meaning less time. Time is less because his clock physically is running slower - get it? To claim it accumulates because it is running slow OR because he traveled less distance is NOT a physics response.

Quote MacM:It is utter stupidity.

Tubbythin "What's utter stupidity, imho, is writing a long essay about something you don't understand for no apparent reason."

Actually NO what is stupid is for others to assume when you question modern day physics that you do not understand physics. I uunderstand relativty quite well. I happen to disagree with it's foundation and conclusions. If you stop reciting what you have read elsewhere and use independant thought you will be able to see the falicy of relativity. The fact is I have a back ground in mechanical , electrical and nuclear engineering; with postgraduate electronics design. I've owned and operated an R&D Corporation that performed NASA Contracts as well as $1M contracts for manufacturers. I hold numerous patents, etc. Further not last OR least I have been on many web sites and have had "Formal" debates with a particle physicist of which he publically commended me for the quality of my questions and ultimately conceeded the potential correctness of some of my views, although he concluded for simplicitys sake he preferred to continue to use relativity even though my view seemed possible. Which by the way is perfectly OK. It is not OK to assert relativity is a correct physical view of the universe or is exclusively correct. It clearly is not.

Now that we have met I hope we can generate some actual intelligent conversation about some of these issues. FYI: I refuse to particiapte with those that want to just throw out rhetoric or cast innuendos. They have shown themselves to be hangers ons. It matters not what your education or profession is. What matters is your ability to talk physics and not just recite the works of others.

Speaking for myself I have no illusions of knowing it all or being totally correct. However, I damn well know more than most posters here have given me credit for knowing. Now we can advance this discussion into something intersting or it can be flushed down the toilet by bs, innuendo and rhetoric - your choice.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:29 PM   #28
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
No, actually what it shows is little patience for idiocy.
Ditto for ignorance.

Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
The simple fact that you consider SR relevant to the non-intertial frame of the twin paradox illustrates that you understand neither SR nor GR.
Just where in the blankty blank do you see me say SR applies to a non-inerial system??? I have not. My point is that time dilation claimed to be the consequence of inertial "Relative velocity" is simply false and that GR IS required to cause time dilation. You should slow down and actually read what has been written.

Originally Posted by drkitten View Post
One of the conclusions drawn from GR is that an object subject to acceleration, whether that acceleration is gravitational or otherwise, experiences less than an object in an inertial frame. This can be clearly demonstrated in the so-called Twin Paradox; the accelerating twin is the younger when they are finally brought together.

Absolutely, I've never said otherwise. Now state your position on the GPS issue. Are the satellites inertial? Is SR applied? COme on stick your neck out so I can correct your attitude.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:29 PM   #29
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,394
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
Well, no . .. as the other poster said, it's all about the vectors.

If GPS was in equatorial orbit, the relative velocity between a spot on the ground and a GPS satellite would be constantly changing - sometimes they'd be moving the same direction, sometimes opposite directions, usually something in between.

Of course, GPS isn't in an equatorial orbit. It's inclined 55 degrees, which makes the relative motion more complicated and dependent on the relationship between the specific ground location and the RAAN and Anomaly of the orbit.

"Relative speed," which is what you seem to be talking about, would be the magnitude of the relative velocity vector. It would be constantly varying.

It would be constantly varying for any given satellite for any given point on the earth's surface, but the mean relative velocity of any satellite averaged over all ground locations would equal the orbital velocity of the satellite. The contribution of the earth's rotation averages out to zero, since for each point on the earth's surface, there's another point on the far side rotating the opposite direction. Hence, the calculation based on "absolute" velocity of the satellite relative to the center of the earth gives the correct answer, while the calculation based on an arbitrary wrong relative velocity between a satellite and a ground station does not. This does not falsify relativity.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:32 PM   #30
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by Dorfl View Post
Ooh! I just had an XKCD moment:

Cute - LOL
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:33 PM   #31
drkitten
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 21,629
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Just where in the blankty blank do you see me say SR applies to a non-inerial system???
When you apply SR to the GPS system -- a non-inertial system, because of the gravity differences -- without correcting for the GR effects (that actually dominate).

Quote:
Are the satellites inertial?
No.

Quote:
Is SR applied?
Not correctly.
drkitten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:48 PM   #32
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Hi MacM
Can you rell me where the value of "absolute velocity in the following comes from?
Quote:
GPS FALSIFIES SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Relativists like to have it both ways. They routinely assert (brag) that GPS proves Special Relativity that clock time must employ both General Relativity and Special Relativity corrections to function,. Yet when I point out the following:

**********************GPS Calculations *********************

GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles (or earth's center).

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared =
1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.
...snip...
It seems to be the velocity of the GPS satellite with respect to an observer on the Earth. Is that your definition of "absolute velocity", i.e. a velocity measured with respect to an observer on Earth?

Otherwise: At what point did you cater for the motions of
  • the Earth around the Sun,
  • the Sun around the galaxy,
  • the galaxy in the Local Cluster,
  • the Local Custer,
  • etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 03:49 PM   #33
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
So now we know you're a liar as well as a quack. Unfortunately for you, your post is still right there (that's the funny thing about internet fora, isn't it?). And it doesn't say "Sagnac Effect", it says "PHYSICAL AFFECT OF SYMMETRICAL RELATIVE VELOCITY" and "An exception to that is the Sagnac affect."

Why is it that all physics cranknuts both

1) have extraordinarily poor language skills, and

2) will never admit when they've made a mistake?
You basless assumptions are going to be your downfall. Let me suggest you quit while you are ahead. But just so you know if your attitude and innuendo persists I'll simply not reply to your BS.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about (and neither will anyone else, because it's nonsense). Special relativity is simply two postulates, neither of which you appear to understand. Both the statement and resolution to the twin "paradox" follows from them and them alone.
You have shown that it is you that are inept. You clearly cannot read or lack reading comprehension. You are one of those that tag along pretending to understand just because you read a book, listened to a lecture or perhaps even memorized some course in college but don't have an independant thought of your own. No actual grass roots understanding of physics.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
What's your goal in posting here? Are you trying to learn something, or convince others of something? If it's the latter, I'd advise you to give up after a start like that. More posts will just make you look even more foolish. If it's the former, try taking a less confrontational attitude.
My OP was not confrontational. It was invitational to discuss certain issues. I'm not intersted in hearing recitals of the theory. I have done that far to many time. However, when other seem to think they can just cast innuendos or make blatantly false accusations with respect to my understanding then you bet I will become confrontational. Most here seem to be under the false concept if you question relativity you don't understand it.

I challenge you to point out any statement I have made about what relativtyasserts that is inconsistant with it. I have and do point consequences that most don't ever even think about. For example that at relavistic velocities you reach a point where under acceleration you get closer to the object you are receeding from. Care to disagree with that?

My impression of "Are you here to learn" is that you think you are ready to teach. I do not think that is the case. I think you are indoctrinated and merely want to try and impose the standard BS rehetoric.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:00 PM   #34
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,561
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Ditto for ignorance.Just where in the blankty blank do you see me say SR applies to a non-inerial system??? I have not. My point is that time dilation claimed to be the consequence of inertial "Relative velocity" is simply false and that GR IS required to cause time dilation. You should slow down and actually read what has been written.
Small problem with this, MacM.
Time dilation as consequence of inertial "Relative velocity" is actually measured in situations where the effects of GR can be ignored. Thus it exists and is true.

You may want to read the papers on the tests of SR listed in What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

For example: High energy physics experiments measure the lifetime of nuclear particles. The faster that they move relative to the observer the longer the lifetime. The magnitude of the time dilation is that predicted by Special Relativity.

ETA: An applicable experiment form the above web page is:
Quote:

The clock hypothesis states that the tick rate of a clock when measured in an inertial frame depends only upon its velocity relative to that frame, and is independent of its acceleration or higher derivatives. The experiment of Bailey et al. referenced above stored muons in a magnetic storage ring and measured their lifetime. While being stored in the ring they were subject to a proper acceleration of approximately 1018 g (1 g = 9.8 m/s2). The observed agreement between the lifetime of the stored muons with that of muons with the same energy moving inertially confirms the clock hypothesis for accelerations of that magnitude.
  • Sherwin, “Some Recent Experimental Tests of the 'Clock Paradox'”, Phys. Rev. 129 no. 1 (1960), pg 17. He discusses some M÷ssbauer experiments that show that the rate of a clock is independent of acceleration (~1016 g) and depends only upon velocity

Last edited by Reality Check; 27th April 2009 at 04:08 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:15 PM   #35
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
This is not a fudge factor, it relates to the way space and time interact. You are thinking of them as far to seperate, time is just an other dimention that you convert to the rest by the factor of c. It is not a physical change that they have happen to them, but a change in the way that you measure their space time coordinates like the seperation between to points in space and time.

There seems to be a disconnect here. People seem to associate the discussion regarding time and space in absolute terms to mean I do not understand the time-space of relativity. That happens to be untrue.

The point here is that to make relativty function one must accept the duality of physical change from a common cause and it is against Osccam's Razor to do that.

It is far more logical and physics is more sensable (i.e. - not counter intuitive) to view things in the alternative. So I am not debating what relativity says but the veracity of the concept.

The term Fudge factor was used because initially Einstein claimed equivelence between frames and asserted that either observer with relative motion can be assumed at rest.

That view is false and is no longer used. GR broke the symmetry of inertial SR. So my point is that SR is invalid in that respect. You cannot claim you use SR to determine a clocks relative accumulated time or it's time dilation when compared to a resting clock without knowlwedge about how that relative velocity was achieved.

For example I give you the following:

1 - Given two clocks "A" & "B" that by whatever means have been synchronized while both are at relative rest.

2 - These two clocks now have an inertial relative velocity.

3 - Given the relative velocity value, when they are brought together, one hour later according to clock "A", at a common rest; which clock will have accumulated lesser time?

If you can answer that without first asking which clock(s) accelerated and for how long then Special Relativity as originally written without GR is valid.

If you must bring in GR then SR is not valid. It is GR that is the root cause of the change. The inertial velocity is being produce by force induced acceleration causing v by a x t. It is the induced velocity times time that causes dilation NOT mere "Relative Velocity".

Now you respond properly to that and I'll conceed, otherwise I'm due (although do not ever expect) apologies from several here. I don't expect it because contrary to comments made about me, they are in fact descriptions of those here "They just are never wrong, relativity is absolutely correct" - Shsssh!!
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:28 PM   #36
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
GPS calculations take both effects from special and general relativity into account. These are some of the best tested and most accurate scientific theories that exist.
BINGO. The first to take the dive. So you assert GPS employs SR compensation of clocks?

Did you read my calculations? These aren't alternative views they are the actual values and how they adre computed.

1 - SR disallows preferred frames.

2 - GPS computes orbit relative to the center of the Earth a preferred rest frame - Not relative velocity to surface clocks.

3 - Surface clock tick rate doesn't change with latitude because of the oblate sphereoid form of the earth. That is as you change latidtude you also change distance to the center of the earth and coincidentally the Gravity change and the surface Velocity change are equally opposite.

4 - tick rate is affected by altitude.

5 - Given the "Relative Velocity" between orbit velocity minus surface velocity using SR you get a velocity lose of 5.58 micro-seconds/day.
That is an INCORRECT value.

6 - However given the LORENTZ Relativity orbit velocity gamma - surface velocity gamma, one gets a time lose of 7.2 micro-seconds/day.

7 - LORENTZ allows and uses referred frames and so does GPS. It does NOT use Special Relativity and relative velocity between clocks to compute GPS times.

Now you know. You clearly did not before. SO who is the teacher here.?

Now you should either point out specifically an error in my calculations or apologize.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:29 PM   #37
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
Tubbythin,

Well Kudos for at least making a series of responses compared to the curt attitudes by some others. Lets see just how germain they are.

Originally Posted by MacM
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.


Tubbythin "No. To quote wiki": Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source.

Perhaps I miss your point but your quote seems to repeat what I have just said.
Nope. Your has no mention of inertial coordinates.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light.

Tubbythin "No. We understand light very well."

You think you do. I think you are allowing yourself to be bamfuzzeled. It is easy to envision light being generated as an energy function (i.e. simular to Cerenkov Radiation) in a multi-energetic flowing spatial medium than be invariantly propogated in a static medium. Your inability (or unwillingness) to consider that possibility means you are being blind sided by your preconcieved ideas and understandings.
I've considered the possibility of what I think you're trying to say and have rejected it because (if I understood what you are trying to say correctly) it was disproved over a century ago.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".

Tubbythin "No. Counter-intuitive works reasonably well."

It actually doesn't work at all. It merely grants those citing it the latitude to ignore their shortcomings and continue to pretend that know more than everyonelse.
Nope. The maths works all fine thanks. All I really care about is: do the predictions of SR match reality in the domain to which SR is applicable? The answer is yes every time. Unless you know of a case I don't.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.

Tubbythin "No. This quite clearly isn't an untenable conflict of the equivalence of inertial frames since one of the frames isn't inertial."

Again you cleverly miss the point. It was my very point that one is not inertial - HINT "Mere Relative Velocity" is no longer a cause of change, acceleration (non-inertial Frame Switching) is.
Erm, you seemed to have missed the point of the twin paradox. There is only a paradox because the twin that goes out comes back. Two come back he cannot be in an inertial frame for his whole journey therefore we must consider relativity in a non-inertial frame to solve the apparent paradox. This does not mean that relativistic differences do not occur between two inertial frames.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion.

Tubbythin "No. F=/=ma in relativity."

You still attempt to avoid the issue. The issue is not how F=ma is dealt with in relativity but the fact that to switch frames one must accelerate (i.e - become non-inertial and break the mere relative velocity symmetry.
F doesn't equal ma in relativity! As for the rest of it... I have no idea what you're getting at.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.

Tubbythin "No. There is only one inertial traveller, the one that stays at home. Whether or not he's at rest or not depends on who is viewing him."

Once again you attempt to confuse the issue. I most certainly know about inertial rest, etc. My point is that in many cases you do not have knowledge of who accelerated or who accelerated the most.

Erm. In which cases in particular?

Quote:
Further what is at issue is who will appear dilated (i.e. - have the slower running clock) While you will choose to deny an absolute frame the simple fact is one can (and should) assume it and from it both clocks may well have absolute velocity and yet be inertial.
Why should I assume it?


Quote:
In such case they will have what appears to them (in absence of the absolute reference) to be equal relative velocity in which case you could not mathematically conclude who's clock is running slower by relativity. But the FACT is one may be and it will be the one that has had the greatest acceleration x time history. Are you going to stick your foot in your mouth and deny that?
I'm going to say I have no idea what you mean.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.

Tubbythin "No. That does not follow."

Inadequate and incorrect response.
I'm sorry. But as far as I'm concerned, your opinion on such things is of no value.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.

Tubbythin "No, this just doesn't make sense. Inertial =/= at rest, in general."

This is hilarious. You attempt to deny real motion caused by an acceleration force breaking the inertial condition by refering to inertial = rest.???? What ever is your point?
Er, no. This is hilarious because you are not making a word of sense. You said "which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest". This makes no sense whatsoever unless you say relative to what is at rest.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.

Tubbythin "Cosmic ray muons clearly falsify this. If its only an illusion, why do we observe that a cosmic ray muon travelling with high relative velocity has a longer lifetime than a stationary one? The illusion alters the laws of physics?"


Unfortunately your example says nothing about the issue. You do understand that cosmic muons have high velocity and assuming it is greater than ours and we are not running into them (since they come from all vectors) they would be expected to suffer time dilation.

So muons have feelings now? If they "suffer" time dilation then time dilation must be a physical reality and absolutely not an in illusion. I can measure the lifetime of a muon whether it is at rest relative to me or not. Guess what? It differs depending on its relative velocity.

Quote:
Now lets see if you happen to know that a study was done where the speed of the earth toward other galaxies was computed correctly, according to other methods ( approx 300km/sec) by using cosmic muon ansitrophy to Earth! . The study conclusion was it is more accurate to compute using an absolute velocity of the muon than to use the muon relative velocity to the earth.!!! .
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality.

Tubbythin "Now you're contradicting yourself."

No contridiction what-so-ever. If you have any reading comprehension ability at all you would have seen that my discussion is with respect to the duality of physical affects caused by a common cause according to relativity. This statement merely states a fact. Time dilation has been repeatedly measured and hence can be considered a physical reality.
I agree that its a physical reality. Unfortunately for you, you said:
"That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes"
and then
"Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality"
then you are quite obviously contradicting yourself.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.

Tubbythin "Err, no. If time dilation is a reality then length contraction must also be a reality."

Your inability to read english is showing more clearly. This presentation points out rather elequently that if you first assume a physical reality with respect to one clock you cannot then ignore that fact when computing the view of another observer.

You haven't pointed anything out eloquently whatsoever. You seem to have missed the point the relativity tells us that time and space are dependent on motion. One physical reality for one observer can be different to another observer. Like the cosmic muons. Its half life in its reference frame is the same as a stationary muon in my reference frame. But because of time dilation this cosmic muon appears to have a longer lifetime than it should. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any acceleration effects.

Quote:
Either the clock ticks slow physically or it is merely a perception. What follows makes the point quite clear. At least if you actually read and comprehend and don't just turn a deaf ear and recite what you have read elsewhere.
It ticks slowly physically. That's why the muon lifetime we measure is longer. Case closed.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.

Tubby "There is no "correct" time. That's kinda the point."

Not an answer but an attempt to avoid the issue. Lets talk physics not rhetoric. You cannot prove a theory by quoting the theory.
Nope its absolutely essential to SR that you understand there is no preffered inertial reference frame. Dismising this as "Not an answer but an attempt to avoid the issue" just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. \

Tubbythin "No it does not. It applies two sets of time standards to two different clocks".

Incorrect. It applies two different time standards to both clocks as a function of who is considered at rest or in motion. In one view they claim the clock ticks slower than the resting observer's clock. Then in the other moving observers view they claim his second is comperable , that is 1 second is still 1 second and hence the fact that he accumulates less time for the trip is that distance foreshortened due to Lorentz Contraction of space. IF YOU MAINTIAN THE DILATED TICK RATE CLAIM BY THE RESTING OBSERVER THEN THE TRIP TIME IS ONLY VALID IF DISTANCE DOES NOT CHANGE.

Writing in caps doesn't do you any favours if you were trying to convince people you weren't a crackpot. By the way, what do you mean by "VALID"?

Quote:
Only by ignoring the dilated moving clock can spatial contraction be claimed.
Huh? In any inertial reference frame speed = distance/time.

Quote:
You want to have two different physical affects induced into physics as a mere matter of perception and ignore one set of physical affects claimed due to motion to assert a different affect as a function of observer perception. THAT IS NOT PHYSICS.
Nope. It has nothing to do with perception. SR stems originally from trying to make Maxwell's equations the same in all reference frames. If you don't have SR then Maxwell's equations and thus the laws of physics in general are frame dependent and we could in fact pick a preffered reference frame. However, the quantum version of Maxwell's equations just happens to be probably the best tested theory in the history of physics and agrees exactly with SR.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.

Tubbythin "There is no "resting clock standard". That's the whole point."

[COLOR="red]What???? You got to be kidding. You state that there is a tick rate difference between clocks i.e. the moving clock is dilated and hence the resting clock tick rate is the comparative standard. It is not an absolute standard because you are not operating on an absolute scale but it is the standrd by which you declare the moving clock dilated. -- Shsss!.
I'm sorry if you're not making yourself very clear. Perhaps try learning about the subject you try and refute before writing a long essay on it?

Quote:
You now have two distinct clock tick rate the resting clock is assumed = 1.0000 and the dilated clock ticks slower by gamma function. I would think you would have known that.[/color]
You've made so many errors in your essay that, to be honest, I'm completely lost.

Quote:
Quote MacM:
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.
Speed = distance/time in any given inertial reference frame.

Quote:
Tubbythin "They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. [COLOR="blue]These cannot be considered physical facts. [/color]
Erm... I did not say the above.

Quote:
They apply a common velocity. Right. That is what I have said and it is physically incorrect to do so. That has been the point of the discussion. It is where relativity goes wrong. Nothing in my presentation claims time dilation is false. To the contrary it is realbut the issue is what is the cause and what is the consequence for physics and relativity. Remember "Velocity" is a calculation based on the ratio to two physical properties, delta distance / delta time. You start by asserting a physical affect "delta time" is less and then ignore that when claiming a common relative velocity, you have switched time standards in the middle of your physical analysis.

Meet the Lorentz transformations

Quote:
The fact is IF time dilation is a physical reality then trip time can only be correct if distance does not change because velocity is a calculated value based on the two physical properties. You pull the bait and switch on time standards to assert the common relative velocity which then creates the secondary physical affect required to make accumulated time come out correct. You want to claim that the person will compute the same velocity because his clock is running at the same UN-dilated rate as the resting clock and he travels less distance meaning less time. Time is less because his clock physically is running slower - get it?
No. Try learning about relativity. Then you might be able to write a sensible essay one day.

Quote:
To claim it accumulates because it is running slow OR because he traveled less distance is NOT a physics response.
What accumulates?

Quote:
Quote MacM:It is utter stupidity.

Tubbythin "What's utter stupidity, imho, is writing a long essay about something you don't understand for no apparent reason."

Actually NO what is stupid is for others to assume when you question modern day physics that you do not understand physics.

That's not why we think you don't understand. We think you don't understand because you've got many many things completely wrong.

Quote:
I uunderstand relativty quite well.
I beg to differ.

Quote:
I happen to disagree with it's foundation and conclusions. If you stop reciting what you have read elsewhere and use independant thought you will be able to see the falicy of relativity.
The fallacy that it has been tested to extraordinarily high precision and has never once failed?

Quote:
The fact is I have a back ground in mechanical , electrical and nuclear engineering; with postgraduate electronics design. I've owned and operated an R&D Corporation that performed NASA Contracts as well as $1M contracts for manufacturers. I hold numerous patents, etc.
Guess what? I don't care.

Quote:
Further not last OR least I have been on many web sites and have had "Formal" debates with a particle physicist of which he publically commended me for the quality of my questions and ultimately conceeded the potential correctness of some of my views, although he concluded for simplicitys sake he preferred to continue to use relativity even though my view seemed possible.
Got any evidence of this?

Quote:
Which by the way is perfectly OK. It is not OK to assert relativity is a correct physical view of the universe or is exclusively correct. It clearly is not.
I beg to differ.

Quote:
Now that we have met I hope we can generate some actual intelligent conversation about some of these issues. FYI: I refuse to particiapte with those that want to just throw out rhetoric or cast innuendos. They have shown themselves to be hangers ons. It matters not what your education or profession is. What matters is your ability to talk physics and not just recite the works of others.

So why did you just try to defend your essay with a "I worked for NASA comment"?

Quote:
Speaking for myself I have no illusions of knowing it all or being totally correct. However, I damn well know more than most posters here have given me credit for knowing. Now we can advance this discussion into something intersting or it can be flushed down the toilet by bs, innuendo and rhetoric - your choice.
What, bs like:
Quote:
The fact is I have a back ground in mechanical , electrical and nuclear engineering; with postgraduate electronics design. I've owned and operated an R&D Corporation that performed NASA Contracts as well as $1M contracts for manufacturers. I hold numerous patents, etc. Further not last OR least I have been on many web sites and have had "Formal" debates with a particle physicist of which he publically commended me for the quality of my questions and ultimately conceeded the potential correctness of some of my views, although he concluded for simplicitys sake he preferred to continue to use relativity even though my view seemed possible.

Last edited by Tubbythin; 27th April 2009 at 04:34 PM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:30 PM   #38
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer View Post
MacM,
Would you like a recommended reading list? Perhaps we can show you how to learn STR if you have a little patience and several years to spare.
Another meaningless innuendo. I suspect the shoe is on the othercfoot here since you can't make specific talking points.
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:38 PM   #39
MacM
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 681
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Are you sure about that?

You say, "...we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer... ". In this statement, you talk about a "universal absolute" that is "relative" to an observer.

These two conditions, "absolute" and "relative", are mutally exclusive. No conclusion you draw from such a flawed premise can possibly be correct. Until you reconcile this fundamental contradiction in your premise, everything that follows from it will be wrong.
Your confusion here is understandable. You do not recognize an absolute frame and hence do no see how a relative veloicty to that frame is absolute.

Let me see if I can give you a simpler example. One that you might equate to.

1 - Assume the state trooper parked along side the highway is at absolute rest.

2 - You are racing your friend down the highway and are breaking the speed limit by a ticketable amount.

3 - We'll let you be winning the race since I sense you are likely sensative to winning. You are going 10 Mph faster relative to your friend.

4 - But guess what that did not protect you from the fact that you were going "Absolutely" 110 Mph "Relative" to the state trooper.

So where is there any mutually exclusive statement here???
MacM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:39 PM   #40
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
 
Holler Hoojer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by MacM View Post
There seems to be a disconnect here. People seem to associate the discussion regarding time and space in absolute terms to mean I do not understand the time-space of relativity. That happens to be untrue.

The point here is that to make relativty function one must accept the duality of physical change from a common cause and it is against Osccam's Razor to do that.

It is far more logical and physics is more sensable (i.e. - not counter intuitive) to view things in the alternative. So I am not debating what relativity says but the veracity of the concept.

The term Fudge factor was used because initially Einstein claimed equivelence between frames and asserted that either observer with relative motion can be assumed at rest.

That view is false and is no longer used. GR broke the symmetry of inertial SR. So my point is that SR is invalid in that respect. You cannot claim you use SR to determine a clocks relative accumulated time or it's time dilation when compared to a resting clock without knowlwedge about how that relative velocity was achieved.

For example I give you the following:

1 - Given two clocks "A" & "B" that by whatever means have been synchronized while both are at relative rest.

2 - These two clocks now have an inertial relative velocity.

3 - Given the relative velocity value, when they are brought together, one hour later according to clock "A", at a common rest; which clock will have accumulated lesser time?

If you can answer that without first asking which clock(s) accelerated and for how long then Special Relativity as originally written without GR is valid.

If you must bring in GR then SR is not valid. It is GR that is the root cause of the change. The inertial velocity is being produce by force induced acceleration causing v by a x t. It is the induced velocity times time that causes dilation NOT mere "Relative Velocity".

Now you respond properly to that and I'll conceed, otherwise I'm due (although do not ever expect) apologies from several here. I don't expect it because contrary to comments made about me, they are in fact descriptions of those here "They just are never wrong, relativity is absolutely correct" - Shsssh!!
MacM,

I'm gonna take a poke at this without much math since I gather you don't like math. If you have two clocks that you somehow synchronized, and those clocks were in relative motion, they will never meet again in STR. If you want to accelerate one of them several times and have it boomerang back, it is you that has now introduced a non-inertial frame. Or you might add gravity, but it's you doing that.

So, it's not kosher for you to introduce acceleration and then say, "if you have to consider acceleration, STR is wrong". You are the one who keeps introducing the idea that you then object to.

You seem like a reasonably smart person, just not about STR. Would you like some pointers on how to learn a little more?
Holler Hoojer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.