Believers Beware

[MacM]

I do hope that others not intrenched in their indoctrination so deeply they can't think, that they realize that what matters is the reality (assuming SR, etc were reality).

The reality would be that if you accept Einsteins view of different physical affects in different frames and force velocity to be equal in both frames which have a relative velocity, then the faster you receed (move away from) a remote cosmic object - THE CLOSER YOU GET!!!!

Even though you can also say BS. velocity is a computed value based on two physical parameters - time and distance. You can logically claim (and I suggest correctly so) that the clock of the more accelerated observer that caused the relative motion time dilation that has been historically observed when subseqently comparing clocks, was physically real in both frames and hence the accelerated observer will compute a different velocity than the resting observer. Even though universally the velocity is the same. Distance will remain fixed and these "Counter Intuitive" phoopas' vanish.

It really matters not that this non-inertial condition is not generally considered in the realm of SR because it is an accelerating frame. The physical reality is still the same and the link that I provided regarding the affect of contstant acceleration addresses that issue.

This issue is NOT some off the wall condition caused by poor math or lack of understanding of relativity as some here would like you to believe. It is a fact of relativity but not necessarily a fact of life fortunately.

 

[pjdude1219]

I do hope that others not intrenched in their indoctrination so deeply they can't think, that they realize that what matters is the reality (assuming SR, etc were reality).

The reality would be that if you accept Einsteins view of different physical affects in different frames and force velocity to be equal in both frames which have a relative velocity, then the faster you receed (move away from) a remote cosmic object - THE CLOSER YOU GET!!!!

Even though you can also say BS. velocity is a computed value based on two physical parameters - time and distance. You can logically claim (and I suggest correctly so) that the clock of the more accelerated observer that caused the relative motion time dilation that has been historically observed when subseqently comparing clocks, was physically real in both frames and hence the accelerated observer will compute a different velocity than the resting observer. Even though universally the velocity is the same. Distance will remain fixed and these "Counter Intuitive" phoopas' vanish.

It really matters not that this non-inertial condition is not generally considered in the realm of SR because it is an accelerating frame. The physical reality is still the same and the link that I provided regarding the affect of contstant acceleration addresses that issue.

This issue is NOT some off the wall condition caused by poor math or lack of understanding of relativity as some here would like you to believe. It is a fact of relativity but not necessarily a fact of life fortunately.

you did fuck up the math in a rather simple manner

 

[BenTheMan]

Well. Well. Another that can only spout venom and not discuss issues. I happen to be 67 and a hell of a lot more educated that you might think.

The difference is in fact that I do think and don't just go around quoting others and let them do my thinking for me.

Some that are educated but are really just tape recorders repeating what they have been told or read and have no underlying understanding of physics. So frankly you have just shot your wad for what it is worth which is nothing.

Congratulations.

Wait a minute...are you the Einstein Hoax guy?

Do you honestly think that in 100+ years of special relativity no one has come up with the objection that you raised in the original post?

 

[funkstar]

Really a shame you don't understand the differance in spinning around and direct change in distance with change in time.

There's isn't really that much of a difference to be considered. When you're in an inertial frame, the speed of light limit applies to object trajectories. When you're not, it doesn't (as the spinning example so clearly demonstrates). When you accelerate up to 30 km/h you're not in an inertial frame, so there's no problem for SR.

FYI: I have had public formal debate on these issues with a respected and published particle physicist and he at least acknowledged that there is no reason to not believe that velocity is frame dependant...

Right, because velocity is frame dependent.

... and distance constant physically but that he personally finds working with SR easier. But easy isn't the key to truth now is it.

To quote Indiana Jones: "Archaeology is the search for facts.. not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is just down the hall."

And on a more serious note: "Easy" is, in fact, often the key to "truth". The principle of parsimony is widely used in science. A simpler theory with the same power as a complex one is usually preferred.

Also, where and when did this debate take place? Who was the physicist? Was it at a university with you both as invited speakers and an audience of academics? Is there a transcript available? Was it taped?

As the saying goes: "Pics, or it didn't happen."

 

[MacM]

you did fuck up the math in a rather simple manner

You might try being a little specific. i.e. - typo where a "." was a ","? Hardly a fuck up.

Or the fact that you don't like applying the conundrum against SR. That is fine. You don't have to like it. Your escape goat to that fact is a mere technicality and I don't care. The reality still exists and is caused by your pet BS theory which is better resolved in my view where there is no spatial contraction.

 

[MacM]

Wait a minute...are you the Einstein Hoax guy?

Do you honestly think that in 100+ years of special relativity no one has come up with the objection that you raised in the original post?

Not at all. I personally know "physicists" that also have simular objections but they too are ignored and phoophooed. The fact that SR works for everyday applications over-rides the issue of physical reality.

My problem with that is only that such narrow mindedness limits efforts to find the true functions. That is we know (or at least strongly suspect) SR is not 100% correct because of QM and realistically the fact that it mandates physically impossible reciprocities where it is known that only the clock which experienced greater F = ma accumulates less time; hence was the ONLY clock ticking slower than the other. That clocks which remain at inertial rest NEVER accumulate less time even though they share the SAME relative velocity.

.

 

[MacM]

There's isn't really that much of a difference to be considered. When you're in an inertial frame, the speed of light limit applies to object trajectories. When you're not, it doesn't (as the spinning example so clearly demonstrates). When you accelerate up to 30 km/h you're not in an inertial frame, so there's no problem for SR.

The escapre goat to the SOL function is NOT at issue here. You miss the point. The issue is the physical reality caused by the SR concept.

The rdeality is that whenever you accelerate in any direction, even on a bicycle, remote cosmic objects behind you are closing in and you are getting closer istead of further away. THAT is the reality of the concept and it is simply not necessary if you stop ignoring the tick rate differential between clocks and hold it as a physical reality in all frames. Spatial contra tion and these anomolies vanish.

Right, because velocity is frame dependent.

To quote Indiana Jones: "Archaeology is the search for facts.. not truth. If it's truth you're looking for, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is just down the hall."

And on a more serious note: "Easy" is, in fact, often the key to "truth". The principle of parsimony is widely used in science. A simpler theory with the same power as a complex one is usually preferred.

Pleasenote:

1 - Fact and Truth MUST be the same by definition it can be not other way. So your quip is meaningless babble.

2 - I merely said the particle physicist asserted SR was simpler. The fact is I think my view is far more simpler. His position dealt with ease of mathematical application not physical simplicity. There is a big differance. SR is NOT a simple theory at the physical level with its mandated reciprocity and spatial contracftion issues.

Also, where and when did this debate take place? Who was the physicist? Was it at a university with you both as invited speakers and an audience of academics? Is there a transcript available? Was it taped?

As the saying goes: "Pics, or it didn't happen."

It was on another site, open to public and the thread are still available although they have been placed into general threads. That is the Formal Debate Forum has been discontinued (it was started in fact just for our debate).

His name was Lincoln. I'll dig up some links to those debates. Not to mis-lead he certainly was not a convert but he at least took serious looks at the discussion and appreciated the finer points of my arguments. To the extend that he acknowledged the viability.

 

[Reiku]

I would say spatial contraction is reserved, rather than your analyzation.

 

[MacM]

I would say spatial contraction is reserved, rather than your analyzation.

That is your perogative. But I find it rather absurd to cling to a concept where an action causes two different physical changes - time in one and distance in another.

Especially when changing clock tick rate in both frames achieves the same thing and is consistant with observation.

Or have you seen space contract? lol :bugeye:

Because I have seen clocks accumulate less time. And logically I see if my clock ticks slower I'll record my trip time as being less even though the distance was the same. - hmmmm. How simple can it be.

 

[MacM]

funkstar,

Per your request here is some debate information.

It was with Dr Don Lincoln, a particle physicist. We had several formal debates and many open public discussions over the years. Before posting I want to make absolutely clear that Dr Lincoln is not a convert and thinks I mis-apply SR but frankly his objections deal more with the fact that I am looking at the consequence of SR and not specifically at the predictions or limitations placed on SR.

That is the affects of SR when applied to the real universe where acceleration of an observer exists even though acceleration is not in the SR domain, etc.

But he certainly does better than most other physicists to which I have chatted in recognizing these realities. That is he is not so smug, nor makes general innuendos as we see above from Ben.....as a defense. He sticks very close to the mathematical facts as practiced.

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

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=1038&start=0

Lincoln "...............the debate has been an interesting one and you have clearly mulled over what appears at face value to be an inconsistency of SR.................."

Lincoln ".....So back to your original query. It's cute, I like it. I may well use it to torture cocky graduate students. ......."

Mac "....If you are correct and spatial contraction is a feature of reality as predicted by SR AND I am right about the affect when considered in the relavistic realm; then what we now see as the accelerating expansion of the universe might well not be due to some mysterious Dark Energy but merely relavistic cosmic objects decelerating post Big Bang Super Luminal Inflation Period due to mass gravity.

That is the expansion is the spatial expansion (inverse contraction due to velocity) as velocity actually is dropping indicating a cyclic universe afterall. ....


Lincoln "....First, let me say that the conundrum posed by Mac was a rather good one, the solution of which is non-trivial. ....."

"....Now, while the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction does hold, the super-luminal velocities that bother you do not occur inside the event horizon. And after the acceleration period, the event horizon recedes at the speed of light, but when finally see the Earth again, you see it is moving away at a speed of 0.8 c. Thus you never see anything moving at superluminal speeds. ."

On the other hand Mac, the query you posed was good enough to stump a number of my colleagues. The amount of time needed to figure this out was substantial….more than I had originally anticipated.

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

Note that Dr Lincoln correctly acknowledged that the rate of distance change DOES occur FTL, but merely masks it with an event horizon. That is entirely different than "Pro's" here have tried to imply.

It has been suggested I didn't understand relativity, that such things just don't happen. Well they do and while you may not have ever thought of it and certainly never studied it because it is at the extremes and not part of the daily use of the theory - It isn't taught. But it is reality and it was my conculusion based on my views that that would be the case. So in contrast to those that would seek to dimenish my understanding I suggest mine in fact is better than theirs, at least in some areas.

************************** Another Debate *****************

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=1410&start=0

Lincoln".....about what relativity is and what it isn't. It doesn't say anything about a moving clock. It simply says how you will observe the clock's time as a non-mover (and vice versa). Relativity only deals with perceived time and space. That's it. ....."

"Mac is, of course, correct that there are Lorentz factors in my skateboard and stopwatch example. It was just to point out that his frame-dependent-relative-velocity concept is no less outrageous than the whole time/space variation thing. Just far less respectable........".

"These formula DO NOT stand alone. In fact, absolutely NO equation stands alone, except possibly . EVERY physics equation is a compact representation of a series of ideas. Anyone who uses equations as if they stood alone....well...can get into a mess just like this.

******************************************************
Note: My biggest complaint against Dr Lincoln is while he more than once asserted that SR is about what each observer "Sees", he consistantly declined to agree that SR was merely perception and not physical reality.

That is my position is that time dilation IS NOT a function of mere relative velocity because there is no reciprocity of affect but is a consequence of F = ma (actual acceleration causing actual velocity. Relative velocity being merely a perception of the resting observer and not actual velocity.

Note also that he concurs that frame dependant velocity is doable but in his words is "...less respectable".
That frankly is just abias and the fact that mathematical formalisim for it has not been done.

What is important here is for novices to understand what Dr Lincoln means when he asserts that time dilation and length contraction formulas do not stand alone.

What he means is when you say clock A is ticking slower than B AND since relative velocity is equal to both that means B is also ticking slower than A at the same time.

IS ONLY TRUE IF YOU CONSIDER THEIR TIMES AT DIFFERENT TIMES OR FROM DISTANT SEPERATON. i.e. - the 4 momentum formulas. Frankly SR really means nothing other than a means of keeping tiack of observers. It is NOT a statement of the proper tick rate or of time actually being accumulated by a clock. IT IS ONLY WHAT OBSERVERS IN RELATIVE MOTION OR SEPERATED BY DISTANCE SEE. Actual time dialtion ONLY occurs in the clock that experienced F = ma and never the resting clock.

Extract of Twin Paradox:

***************************************************
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/202.sc2k.spring03/chap28/chap28.html

One of the most famous arguments is the so-called twin paradox :

two twin brothers say goodbye to each other, as one stays on earth and the other embarks on a super fast spaceship, traveling at some fraction of the speed of light for many years. To the brother on earth it appears that his twin, ages more slowly then himself. But on the other side, from the astronaut's point of view, it is the brother on earth that is moving, and therefore it is the earth based clock that is ticking more slowly. But of course both possibilities cannot be simultaneously true, when the traveler returns on earth, he must be either younger or older than his brother, but not both....Hence, it was stated, relativity leads to a conceptual impossibility.....

The resolution of the dilemma is based on the fact that, in this example, it is possible to state absolutely which of the two was moving: the astronaut, in order to leave earth, reach a high speed, go somewhere, turn around and land back onto earth, must undergo several steps of acceleration. And given that it is possible to assess which twin was in fact accelerating, then it is also possible to establish who was moving and who wasn't... In conclusion, the astronaut will come back to earth and find himself in the future
*******************************************************

Note that the description in "blue" is the same as I assert for clocks and claim further that it is the clock that accelerated which becomes dilated. Reciprocity does not exist.

In "Red" you can see this is the solution even relativists assert. That being the case I am at a loss as to why you continue to argue for SR when it's reciprocity is recognized as a physical no-no and motion, hence time dilation, is a function of acceleration induced motion (velocity) not merely relative velocity.

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

Lincoln "I admit to being a bit shaky on Mac's more absolutist theory...mostly because it is offered outside a larger theoretical framework. Possibly if there was a paper or book on the theory I could better understand it, but it seems to me that his idea that velocity is not equal and opposite, or reciprocal or whatever you want to call it, would fail to predict the symmetry of electric and magnetism. I THINK, but am not sure..."

"I remember the wire issue. The only problem there was I slightly oversold the whole electricity is magnetism thing. "

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

So my only point here is that folks should chill a bit and back off. Quoting current books is hardly adequate rebuttal. Prove me wrong don't just claim I'm wrong because until you prove me wrong I'll not believe you.

MY VIEW ABOUT CLOCKS AND TIME DILATION IS ENTIRELY CONSISTANT WITH THE LINK ABOVE FROM U. VIRGINA AND THE TWIN SOLUTION.

THEY ARE INDENTICAL. IF NOT PLEASE SHOW WHERE THEY DIFFER.

Time dilation is due to true motion and true motion is a function of F = ma, not mere relative velocity.

Sorry guys you lose.

For those that may review the debates I re-emphasize that Dr Lincoln and I do not agree on many things but his disagreements are more considered and his reservations more honest than we see here.

There we had open formal debate in the physics area.

Here the issue hit the pseudoscience threads before the first poster posted.

 

[pjdude1219]

You might try being a little specific. i.e. - typo where a "." was a ","? Hardly a fuck up.

Or the fact that you don't like applying the conundrum against SR. That is fine. You don't have to like it. Your escape goat to that fact is a mere technicality and I don't care. The reality still exists and is caused by your pet BS theory which is better resolved in my view where there is no spatial contraction.

you never accounted for the fact everything is moving and much of the movement cancels out. you were measuring as if you were compaing to a completly static object

 

[pjdude1219]

You might try being a little specific. i.e. - typo where a "." was a ","? Hardly a fuck up.

Or the fact that you don't like applying the conundrum against SR. That is fine. You don't have to like it. Your escape goat to that fact is a mere technicality and I don't care. The reality still exists and is caused by your pet BS theory which is better resolved in my view where there is no spatial contraction.

or you just don't understand math or physics which is probably more likely

 

[MacM]

you never accounted for the fact everything is moving and much of the movement cancels out. you were measuring as if you were compaing to a completly static object

pardon me but this is absurd and baseless.

 

[MacM]

or you just don't understand math or physics which is probably more likely

More baseless babble . Your comments show your lack of any understanding.

 

[Gustav]

what macm said
go kick some dogmatic ass, boy!

 

[przyk]

The rdeality is that whenever you accelerate in any direction, even on a bicycle, remote cosmic objects behind you are closing in and you are getting closer istead of further away.

Then you've got inertial frames in which the bike and cosmic objects are separating, and an accelerating frame in which the distance between them is decreasing - ie. different frames offering different descriptions of the same set of events. You're entitled to your own opinion of how "weird" or "counter-intuitive" this is, but it's certainly not a contradiction in the theory.

The fact is I think my view is far more simpler.

In general, you can't just barge in and say "I propose a theory in which moving clocks dilate by [insert velocity dependent factor] and moving rods don't contract", simply because clocks and rods aren't fundamental objects that you can attribute any properties you want to. They're complex systems of particles whose evolution (including equilibrium lengths and "tick rates") is already completely determined by the physical laws they're governed by. The only reason Galilean relativity and STR can claim unique time dilation and length contraction factors[sup]*[/sup] applicable to all objects is because they assume these physical laws obey the relativity principle (invariance with respect to Galilean and Lorentz transformations, respectively). If you toss out the relativity principle, you'd have to do an analysis of some kind to find how individual objects would be affected by motion, given the laws that govern their equilibrium lengths, ageing rate, etc[sup]+[/sup]. You'd have no right to even assume moving clocks would still function or that material objects would even be stable at high velocities.

Just keep this in mind when you claim you have a simpler alternative to relativity.

[sup]*[/sup] Both 1 in the case of Galilean relativity - ie. no length contraction or time dilation.
[sup]+[/sup] You'd have to formulate these laws first. The current ones are relativistic and you're apparently not happy with this, so it's up to you to propose replacements for them.

SR is NOT a simple theory at the physical level with its mandated reciprocity and spatial contracftion issues.

If you're still at the level where you think reciprocity is "nonsensical", then you don't understand relativity. There are theories in physics (like quantum mechanics) that make apparently nonsensical predictions that we just have to live with, but relativity isn't one of them. It's perfectly possible to "physically understand" reciprocity and all the other relativistic effects.

 

[pjdude1219]

pardon me but this is absurd and baseless.

all you did was add up all the velocities with out any concern to direction and some of the directions are counter to each other. its not absurd and baseless to point you made a major logical error in your bath or are you to blind to see it

 

[pjdude1219]

More baseless babble . Your comments show your lack of any understanding.

what that you found a flaw in a law with lots of evidence. all i understand is you seem to be someone who has a misunderstanding of something and thinks they have come up with a great new idea.

 

[MacM]

You're entitled to your own opinion of how "weird" or "counter-intuitive" this is, but it's certainly not a contradiction in the theory.

This shows you don't even understand the arguement. I have never claimed it was counter to SR. In fact I said because of SR this is a consequence which MOST have never considered becomes the reality.

In general, you can't just barge in and say "I propose a theory in which moving clocks dilate by [insert velocity dependent factor] and moving rods don't contract",

I can do that based on simple observation of data that supports the concept, more so than one can assert SR based on those same observations.

Remember accelerated clocks dilate and that is recorded and observed fact. There is no basis, indeed it is counter to simple physics to ignore a dilated clock when computing velocity based on recorded time and distance traveled. Velocity is a conmputed ratio of two physical parameters. SR uses a computed factor in one frame, ignores the time dilation in the moving frame and imposes the same computed velocity to artifically cause the apparent change in distance. DISTANCE DID NOT CHANGE. THE TRIP TIME BASED ON THE DILATED TICK RATE OF THE CLOCK DFULLY ACCONTS FOR THE ACCUMULATED TIME ON THE MOVING CLOCK BASED ON THE SAME DISTANCE.

There has been no observation or recorded data to support distance changed. It is counter to good physics principles. v = d/t and v' = d/t' is the only logical and rational concept. In such case distance did not change. This view is still consistant with observation and data. It violates nothing other than the feelings of relativists.

simply because clocks and rods aren't fundamental objects that you can attribute any properties you want to. They're complex systems of particles whose evolution (including equilibrium lengths and "tick rates") is already completely determined by the physical laws they're governed by.

Change your use of terms from "laws" to "assumptions". There is NO LAW that stipulates tick rates and length. There is good mathemattical formulation that predicts what happens to tick rate when accelerated to have actual motion (but not when it merely has relative velocity). Relative velocity to an accelerated object has never produced any change in the resting object yet.

There is NO LAW stating length of a rod based on it's relative velocity. Ther is only the assertion of SR that the rod length changes and that is based on faulty logic regarding simple basic physics by ignoring the dilated tick rate known to exist in the accelerated clock when computing distance using the accumulated time on the moving clock.

The only reason Galilean relativity and STR can claim unique time dilation and length contraction factors[sup]*[/sup] applicable to all objects is because they assume these physical laws obey the relativity principle (invariance with respect to Galilean and Lorentz transformations, respectively).

Relativity principle is only what Einsteins decided it would be. Just as he wanted the universe to be static and worked out the math for that, he wanted time & space to be timespace and to achieve that he formulated a mathematical treaty to accomplish that but in doing so he commits assinine neglect of the very affect to which THERE IS OBSERVATION AND DATA and that is the dilation of a clocks tick rate after having been accelerated.

If you toss out the relativity principle, you'd have to do an analysis of some kind to find how individual objects would be affected by motion, given the laws that govern their equilibrium lengths, ageing rate, etc[sup]+[/sup]. You'd have no right to even assume moving clocks would still function or that material objects would even be stable at high velocities.

Nobody is throwing out the relativity principle. Gamma survives and clocks still dilate but distance doesn't change. And as Dr Lincoln correctly pointed out that view is equally viable to SR but he just finds SR easier to apply.

Ease of application does not equate with truth. Nor does truth assert that you must give up ease of application. You just need to stop going through life with blinders on accepting all the BS just because of mathematical convience.

Just keep this in mind when you claim you have a simpler alternative to relativity.

[sup]*[/sup] Both 1 in the case of Galilean relativity - ie. no length contraction or time dilation.
[sup]+[/sup] You'd have to formulate these laws first. The current ones are relativistic and you're apparently not happy with this, so it's up to you to propose replacements for them.

I'm afraid not. To point out falicies of a concept it is NOT necessary to propose a replacement. That is a strawman arguement. That is the very equivelent of being a witness that a person was in one town when a crime was commited in another but you can't give him an alibi unless you can solve the crime and tell who did commit it. That is BS.

If you're still at the level where you think reciprocity is "nonsensical", then you don't understand relativity.

Laughable if it weren't so pathetic. First as Dr Lincoln agreed "reciprocity" as predicted by SR is "What others SEE and ONLY what they SEE". It has nothing to do with the reality of the actual clock tick and the rate at which it accumulates time.

SR reciprocity is based on a shift in simultaneity. That is you are saying what each sees but at different times and places. Not really a very useful thing to know. The only thing useful is to know how fast the clock is actually ticking, not how fast it looks like it is ticking while looking at it in motion. Shsssh.

There are theories in physics (like quantum mechanics) that make apparently nonsensical predictions that we just have to live with, but relativity isn't one of them. It's perfectly possible to "physically understand" reciprocity and all the other relativistic effects.

I do understand reciproicty. Apparently you don't. Apparently you think reciprocity means both clocks tick slower than each other and it is something we just have to accept, however counter intuitive. That is not the case.

Only one clock ticks slower. Both appear to tick slower. That is the differrace in reality and SR. It is the differance in your understanding and mine. Mine is consistant with observation and data, yours is not.

 

[MacM]

all you did was add up all the velocities with out any concern to direction and some of the directions are counter to each other. its not absurd and baseless to point you made a major logical error in your bath or are you to blind to see it

I'm sorry but your comments are simply false and without merit. You apparently don't undrstand the problem. You should consider that I'm not here just of the turnip truck making untested babble.

This issue (as indicated above) has been covered in depth with particle physicists and what I'm claiming turns out to be fact. Not some logical error,oversight or by being blind. It is just not something you (or for that matter most professionals) ever think about.

For example the observered accelerating expansion of the universe MUST actually be due to the decelleration of it's gallaxies due to gravity, if Lorentz Contraction of space at relavistic velocities is real.

That means the actual expansion is slowing down not speeding up.

Now when you understand this get back with me and perhaps you will be able to chat intelligently.