Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[MacM]

I asked you some questions, and you answered as follows:

James R:“ 1. Do the clocks have the same reading, or different readings when they are brought back together?

MacM: "Different: 10 hours and 4.35 hours."

James R; "2. Can you justify your answer to (1)? Please show the mathematics."

MacM: "Already have numerous times. 3.92 LHr/0.9c = 4.35 hours. 9 LHr/0.9c = 10 hours. Both times are a function of clocks having a common tick rate but traveling different distances at the same relative velocity. ”

James R: "Then, a little further down, you say:"

MacM: " And we have established that what Relativity says is false. ”


James R: "You own explanation, given above, relies on the reality of length contraction, which is an effect of Relativity. Therefore, you are trying to prove relativity false by first assuming it is true. You error, as has been explained, is that when you assume it is true for the purpose of your disproof you take only part of it, and ignore other parts. That is simply dishonest. You can't pick and choose which parts of the theory to use. It's all or nothing."

No dishonest is to continue to redefine the frames view and make claim in one frame that distance contracted and then in the other frame ignore length contraction and then make claim that time differential traveling different distances means tick rate has dilated.

The relative velocity in each case is identical. In each case the view is from a frame at rest. It is blatantly dishonest to therefore treat the two frames differently. You create the problem. It does not exist in real physics.

Saying the problem is that I do not understand referance frames is an outright sham.

TELL US ON WHAT BASIS YOU JUSTIFY TREATING EACH FRAME DIFFERENTLY.

All you have proven by advocating part but not the whole is that your bastardised version of relativity with time dilation taken out is not viable.

JUSTIFY BASTARDIZING PHYSICAL REALITY BY TREATING TWO IDENTICAL FRAMES DIFFERENTLY. Claiming that I use only part of the theory is simply to acknowledge that I refuse to apply duplicitious tactics to an identical physical circumstance. Of course you can create all sorts of wierd affects if you claim in one instance distance contracted but in the identical situation you claim it didn't and the differential time in clocks that traveling different distances then becomes your time dilation.

This is not an either or choice. If it is real then it exists and you do not have an arbitrary choice of which affect you choose to claim.

Your refer to a response of mine from another thread:

James R Extracted: " ..........plus length contraction (or time dilation, depending on how you want to look at the problem). ”

You have left out the context, of course, but it doesn't really matter. Note that I said "depending on how you want to look at the problem".

Just how did I leave it out of context when I posted the link to your comments and even quoted in the Extract the very same verbage you claim I left out of context? You seem desperate to complain about something.

What I meant by that is "depending on which frame of reference you want to work in".

This is perfectly consistent with everything else I've said.

I don't see where I have said it is not consistant. It is in fact the very problem and issue raised here. You find it perfectly OK to change realities of identical situations by claiming, as a matter of choice, which reality you want to claim.

It is 3rd grade level reasoning to not understand that you will create such an affect by first applying different standards to identical situations. You simply cannot justify claiming some affect is physically real in one case but in the next case simply ignore it. What happened it is no longer real since you choose to ignore it? LOL.

MacM:" This position clearly states that to claim time dilation is an arbitrary choice vs claiming that distance has contracted. ”

Not arbitrary. Frame dependent.

False. This is a thin veiled coverup. The frames have identical foundations and facts. There is no basis to treat each frame differently. If length contraction is real and it occurs in one frame, i.e. - Clock "B", then it must occur in the other frame Clock "A". If it does your time dilation and differential distance traveled vanishes.

THAT IS CALLED RECIPROCITY. Your failure is to not understand reciprocity and the fact, stated or not in SRT, that it is physical and must be applied. It is your failure to apply reciprocity to your physics which generates these false illusions.

There's a separate thread you can look at to educate yourself about reference frames. I suggest you take a look.

Let me suggest that this issue, this thread, and this post, suggest it is not I that should do some studying.

MacM:“ Is it that you can't decide which is real and don't want to give up either that you try to claim both are real? ”

Both are real.

Fiat, and also outright unjustified bullshit. You have been exposed. Please don't continue to make false assertions and be self-rightous.

MacM:“ Without question a clock that accumulates less time during a trip which is shorter but has a constant or common tick rate is entirely a different matter than claiming that a clock has altered or dilated time. ”

Not if you're referring to two different views of the same trip, which is the situation here.

The two views do not require two different sets of physics. They require the same treatment since they have the same relavistic basis. i.e same relative velocity and each viewed as being at rest.

There is no justification to treat them differently other than to generate the end result you desire which is to claim a time differential in the clocks. That time differential vanishes when you do actual physics in the real world.

You do this so as to avoid the embarrassing fact that according to Relativity each clock must slow by an equal amount which would show that there is no systemic net measurable time dilation between clocks.

Did you also cheat on your exams in college? You sure as hell are trying to cheat here.

MacM:“ Relative motion is relative motion and I find it curious as to why you would have "A" see time dilated and not see distance contracted but have "B" see distance contracted but not time dilated. Each hold the view that they are at rest and it is the other that is in motion. ”

This is telling indeed.

Even after two years of discussions, you haven't managed to grasp the most basic concepts about reference frames.

Go and get a book on special relativity and read it. Please.

As I have just pointed out, it seems I am in fact a step ahead of you and applying your best fancy foot work you have failed to pull off your Texas Two Step.

You are deliberately advocating a sham.

Now address the issues:

1 - By what justification have you treated the two observers in this relative motion scenario with different physics?

2 - How do you justify the fact that given distance traveled accounts for the accumulated display of time on the clock and that its tick rate remained common between frames, that you can then compute the other frame ignoring length contraction and take the different times resulting from that differential treament of identical situations and then claim time must have dilated.

YOU SIR AND RELATIVITY ARE A FRAUD.

 

[James R]

MacM:

No dishonest is to continue to redefine the frames view and make claim in one frame that distance contracted and then in the other frame make claim that time tick rate has dilated.

There's only one answer in each frame which is correct according to relativity. There's no choice allowed in the matter, apart from the freedom to choose a frame of reference. Once you choose a reference frame, the answers are set in concrete. Also, once the problem is solved in any single frame, the answers for all other possible frames are constrained, because results in different frames must transform according to the Lorentz transformations.

Your assertion that answers in relativity are arbitrary is childish and shows (as usual) that you have no clue of what you're talking about.

TELL US ON WHAT BASIS YOU JUSTIFY TREATING EACH FRAME DIFFERENTLY.

Differently in what sense?

The problem is not symmetrical, of course, because we agreed to start clocks A and B simultaneously only in frame A. It is impossible to start them simultaneously in both frames.

This makes a difference, and you can't just ignore that, much as you would like to.

You find it perfectly OK to change realities of identical situations by claiming, as a matter jof choice, which reality you want to claim.

It is you who is claiming, on the basis of nothing at all, that length contraction occurs. You don't believe in relativity, so I don't know how you conclude that length contraction occurs. Moreover, you claim it occurs in only one frame.

I based my answer on relativity. Who knows what you based yours on?

False. This is a thin veiled coverup. The frames have identical foundations and facts. There is no basis to treat each frame differently.

Except that:

* the original distance was specified in A's frame, not B's.
* the clocks were started simultaneously in A's frame, not B's.

There's your basis.

If length contraction is real and it occurs in one frame, i.e. - Clock "B", then it must occur in the other frame Clock "A".

Length contraction of what? This is so vague as to be meaningless.

THAT IS CALLED RECIPROCITY. Your failure is to not understand reciprocity and the fact, stated or not in SRT, it is physical and must be applied. It is your failure to apply reciprocity to your physics which generates these false illusions.

Reciprocity is a MacM fantasy concept which has no application in Relativity.

It's just something you made up out of nowhere. It has no basis in fact.

The two views do not require two different sets of physics. They require the same treatment since they have the same relavistic basis. i.e same relative velocity and each viewed as being at rest.

Which is how I treated them.

You do this so as to avoid the embarrassing fact that according to Relativity each clock must slow by an equal amount which would show that there is no systemic net measurable time dilation between clocks.

I already explained why there is a net time difference. Twice.

Please re-read the explanation.

Did yo also cheat on your exams in college? You sure as hell are trying to cheat here.

I suspect I did a lot better on exams in college than you did. In fact, I don't think you went to college, did you? And no, I didn't cheat, MacM.

Now address the issues:

1 - By what justification have you treated the two observers in this relative motion scenario with different physics?

I haven't. I used the theory of relativity in both frames.

2 - How do you justify the fact that given distance traveled accounts for the accumulated display of time on the clock and that its tick rate remained common between frames, that you can then compute the other frame ignoring length contraction and take the different times resulting from that differential treament of identical situations and then claim time must have dilated.

Multiple errors here:

1. You're mixing frames.
2. The tick rates are not "common between frames".
3. Length contraction was not ignored. If I had ignored it, I would have got the wrong answer.
4. The two frames are not symmetrical, for reasons given above.

 

[MacM]

There's only one answer in each frame which is correct according to relativity. There's no choice allowed in the matter, apart from the freedom to choose a frame of reference. Once you choose a reference frame, the answers are set in concrete. Also, once the problem is solved in any single frame, the answers for all other possible frames are constrained, because results in different frames must transform according to the Lorentz transformations.

CHOICE #1:

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velcoity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

CHOICE #2

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velcoity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Those are your frames of choice. It is you that are mixing frames by mixing physics for the identical problem conditions.

In choice #1 there is no time dialtion and no length contraction.

In choice #2 there is length contraction and a dilated time but not between clocks as per Relativity. Such dilation only has meaning in the view of a universal time background.

YOUR GENERATION OF THE FALSE ILLUSION OF TIME DIALTION:

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velOcity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Result "A" = 10 Hours, "B" = 4.35 Hours. WOW. Time dilation between clocks.

No damn wonder you have the clocks traveling different distances but their tick rates have remained constant and equal. Different distances is totally unjustified since both are views of being at rest and have a 0.9c relative velocity consideration.

THE ACCUMULATED TIMES YOU HAVE ARTIFICALLY GENERATED ARE NOT A FUNCTION OF ALTERED TIME BUT OF ALTERED DISTANCE TRAVELED. TICK RATES REMAIN CONSTANT, EVEN IN YOUR OWN EXAMPLE. GIVE IT UP YOU ARE WRONG.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF THE TWO VIEWS.

SHOW US WHERE IN RELATIVITY IT STATES ONE MUST ONLY CALCULATE LENGTH CONTRACTION IN ONE VIEW BUT NOT THE OTHER.

Your assertion that answers in relativity are arbitrary is childish and shows (as usual) that you have no clue of what you're talking about.

We notice that this does not address the issue in any scientific manner. You are avoiding answering the questions put to you.

Differently in what sense?

Don't be obtuse. In one view you compute length contraction. Given the same set of conditions in the other frame you do not compute length contraction.

It is the differential distance traveld that you create by treating the views differently that causes the accumulated time differance and not some tick rate change or time dilation.

The problem is not symmetrical, of course, because we agreed to start clocks A and B simultaneously only in frame A. It is impossible to start them simultaneously in both frames.

This makes a difference, and you can't just ignore that, much as you would like to.

WE didn't agree with that at all. If you still insist then lets put that issue to bed.

Step 1: What is the time differential between start times of the clocks according to you.? Keep in mind you can not claim any differentials in affects of motion between clocks because relative motion is identical.

Start "A"________

Start "B"________

Of course be aware that if yo claim any time differential You simply failed to proeprly set your relavistically precalculated timers.

Sorry the clocks DO start simultaneously regardless of view of start times. The view over distance is information delay and has no bearing on the actual start times. They start SIMULTANEOUSLY.

It is you who is claiming, on the basis of nothing at all, that length contraction occurs. You don't believe in relativity, so I don't know how you conclude that length contraction occurs. Moreover, you claim it occurs in only one frame.

Stop squirming. You are giving me whiplash. The calculations are yours. You invoked length contraction in one view and not the other. Personally neither spatial contraction, nor time dilation are real physical affects but that is not the issue here. The issue here is your own mathematical MIS-treatment of this case.

I based my answer on relativity. Who knows what you based yours on?

Yes and they is why you are incorrect. Reltivity as being applied is false.

Except that:

* the original distance was specified in A's frame, not B's.
* the clocks were started simultaneously in A's frame, not B's.

False. This is your deliberate effort to not treat each identical as they should be.

Length contraction of what? This is so vague as to be meaningless.

Being obtuse only buys you time. It does not get you off the hook.

Reciprocity is a MacM fantasy concept which has no application in Relativity.

HeHeHe. I love it. Reciprocity is inherent to Relativity. Stated or not, it must apply. It is not MacM's fabrication it is an unavoidable physical principle a REALITY which must be applied.

It's just something you made up out of nowhere. It has no basis in fact.

False. It is inherent in any relavistic case.

Which is how I treated them.

You got to be kidding. Do you really think that just saying so cover up the fact that you compute length contraction in one case but not the other?

The relative velocity is the dsame. Each is viewed as being at rest. JUSTIFY NOT TREATING EACH EQUAL AND COMPUTING LENGTH CONTRACTION IN BOTH.

I already explained why there is a net time difference. Twice.

Yes and you have been wrong both times.

I suspect I did a lot better on exams in college than you did. In fact, I don't think you went to college, did you? And no, I didn't cheat, MacM.

You get sensative when innuendo is cast your way don't you.? You are correct I did not attend college perse, but I did have colleges courses taught by degreed professors via a Special act of Congress establishing the Nuclear Power Field Office at Ft Belvoir, Va. and included mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus speciality training in design, maintenance and operation of process instrumentation control systems, which is electronics, hydraulics, pnematics, etc.; plus refueling and operating a nuclear power plant.

Ever set at the control panel of one of those babies? Lot going on at once. You are trained to keep your eye on the ball and to not get diverted. You are letting yourself get diverted.

Unlike the standards to enter College, testing required that candiates be within the top 5% scores nationally. So you can stop with the innuendos.

MacM:“ Now address the issues:

1 - By what justification have you treated the two observers in this relative motion scenario with different physics? ”

I haven't. I used the theory of relativity in both frames.

Doesn't your tounge get tired being so twisted. You used Relativity but you used two different physical principles. You compute length contraction due to relative velocity in one but not the other. Youthen impose the claim of Relativity comparing the two calculations. One using length contraction and one not. It is outright fraud and the results have noting to do with an alteration of time but an alteration of distance..

[MacM:“ 2 - How do you justify the fact that given distance traveled accounts for the accumulated display of time on the clock and that its tick rate remained common between frames, that you can then compute the other frame ignoring length contraction and take the different times resulting from that differential treament of identical situations and then claim time must have dilated. ”

Multiple errors here:

1. You're mixing frames.

Wrong. I am treating frames equally. Further if you apply reciprocity -AND YOU MUST - When you reverse the claimed situation by saying "B" frame first and then "A" frame, even if you continue to do what you wrongflully did, you get a reverse situation and multiple distance between two objects and multiple tick rates of the clock which is impossible.

2. The tick rates are not "common between frames".

Yes they are. You only generate an accumulated time differential because you want to claim they traveled different distances. Timing a shorter trip doesnot mean time ran slower. It means they ran at the same rate for a shorter period of time. WAKE UP. YOU ARE WRONG.

3. Length contraction was not ignored. If I had ignored it, I would have got the wrong answer.

No you would have gotten a correct answer for time dilation but perhaps wrong for the accumulated time IF one accepts spatial length contraction as valid (which I do not).

4. The two frames are not symmetrical, for reasons given above.

They are symmetrical. Each is viewed from rest. Each has a relative velocity component of equal value. Your claim that they start at different times violates Relativity in the first instance since the timers were set according to precalcualted affects of Relativity.

If they don't start simultaneously Relativity is falsified before the test even begins.

 

[James R]

MacM:

As usual, you're blowing in the wind, flip-flopping back and forth, and retracting previously agreed statements.

Just before, you claimed I was wrong because length contraction actually occurred, but time dilation did not. Now you want to claim that even length contraction doesn't occur. Flip flop.

In another thread, you agreed that relativity states that events which are simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a relatively-moving frame. But not you assert that relativity requires precisely the opposite thing. Flip flop.

You should take a clear stance on this. You have two possible lines of argument:

A. The relativistic description of your problem has inconsistencies within itself, and therefore cannot be correct.

OR

B. The relativistic description of your problem does not apply in any way, and therefore cannot be correct.

You're mixing the two lines of argument, and flip-flopping between the two whenever is convenient.

Having completely failed with argument (A), it would seem that you only have argument (B) left. In that case, you should propose your alternative solution as required by argument (B) and be prepared to defend your solution.

You're wasting your time attempting to attack relativity on its own turf (A), since your understanding of the theory is so flawed that your arguments can be easily dismissed by anybody with even a moderate understanding of the theory. You'd be much better off simply arguing that relativity is completely wrong, and proposing an alternative view.

Below, I will point out your latest errors in what you think relativity says.

Choice #1:

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velcoity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

CHOCIE #2

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velcoity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Those are your frames of choice. It is you that are mixing frames by mixing physics for the identical problem conditions.

You have failed to apply the theory of relativity in deriving these "choices". Anybody who knows relativity would agree that both choices are wrong. Compare my correct answers, near the top of this thread.

In choice #1 there is no time dialtion and no length contraction.

Which is wrong.

In choice #2 there is length contraction and a dilated time but not between clocks as per Relativity. Such dilation only has meaning in the view of a universal time background.

Which is also wrong.

YOUR GENERATION OF THE FALSE ILLUSION OF TIME DIALTION:

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velcoity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Result "A" = 10 Hours, "B" = 4.35 Hours. WOW. Time dialtion between clocks.

Yes.

No damn wonder you have the clocks traveling different distances but their tick rates have remained constant and equal. Different distances is totally unjustified since both are views of vbeing at rest and have a 0.9c relative velocity consideration.

The distance 0.9 light hours was specified in A's frame. When we go to B's frame, we must correct for the change in frame. That is the justification.

I guess you missed this elementary point.

We notice that this does not address the issue in any scientific manner. You are avoiding answering the questions put to you.

It is interesting, is it not, that we always get this kind of comment from you immediately following where I have addressed the very issue you claim has not been addressed? As usual, I have actually avoided nothing. You have just blotted out my explanation from your memory.

Don't be obtuse. In one view you compute length contraction. Given the same set of conditions in the other frame you do not compute length contraction.

Conditions in each frame are not the same.

Step 1: What is the time differential between start times of the clocks according to you.? Keep in mind you can not claim any differentials in affects of motion between clocks because relative motion is identical.

If I'm not allowed to apply a correct theory to answer your question, then I can't answer it. Sorry. I'll wait for your permission to use relativity.

Of course be aware that if yo claim any time differential You simply failed to proeprly set your relavistically precalculated timers.

It's your test, not mine. Any failings are yours.

Sorry the clocks DO start simultaneously regardless of view of start times. The view over distance is information delay and has no bearing on the actual start times. They start SIMULTANEOUSLY.

You previously agreed with a number of statements regarding what relativity says about simultaneity. I refer you to those. Flip flop.

* the original distance was specified in A's frame, not B's.
* the clocks were started simultaneously in A's frame, not B's.

False. This is your deliberate effort to not treat each identical as they should be.

By denying these facts, you are retracting something you agreed to at the start of the thread. Flip flop.

Wrong. I am treating frames equally. Further if you apply reciprocity -AND YOU MUST - When you reverse the claimed situation by saying "B" frame first and then "A" frame, even if you continue to do what you wrongflully did, you get a reverse situation and multiple distance between two objects and multiple tick rates of the clock which is impossible.

Your application of the theory of relativity is incorrect, and your "reciprocity" is not part of the theory of relativity.

Yes they are. You only generate an accumulated time differential because you want to claim they traveled different distances. Timing a shorter trip doesnot mean time ran slower. It means they ran at the same rate for a shorter period of time. WAKE UP. YOU ARE WRONG.

You're mixing frames, as I already explained.

If they don't start simultaneously Relativity is falsified before the test even begins.

How can you so openly lie about previously agreed statements.

You previously agreed that the theory of relativity says that if two clocks start simultaneously in one frame they CANNOT start simultaneously in a relatively-moving frame. Do you remember that? I thought not.

This test is simply another example of the same issue which has bugged you for two years (and probably 50 years, in fact).

Please make an effort to understand the relativity of simultaneity. Why coast through your whole life with your brain in neutral?

 

[MacM]

MacM:

As usual, you're blowing in the wind, flip-flopping back and forth, and retracting previously agreed statements.

Just before, you claimed I was wrong because length contraction actually occurred, but time dilation did not. Now you want to claim that even length contraction doesn't occur. Flip flop.

Please don't treat me and other readers as imbeciles. I have stated numerous times on this forum. I do not believe spatial contraction occurs. I have clearly stated that in discussing this case I am referring to your assumptions that length contraction is real and have stated once again that I do not even accept that but are doing so only for the purpose of exposing your duplicity.

You really should attempt to stay on point and address the physics issue and stop your vain efforts to taint my character. You lack the capacity.

In another thread, you agreed that relativity states that events which are simultaneous in one frame cannot be simultaneous in a relatively-moving frame. But not you assert that relativity requires precisely the opposite thing. Flip flop.

Yes and I have also stated that those claims are invalid. So what is your point. That if I agree with what it says, that I also agree with the claim. I THINK NOT. That is ludricrus.

Again try sticking to the point and address the physics issues.

You should take a clear stance on this. You have two possible lines of argument:

A. The relativistic description of your problem has inconsistencies within itself, and therefore cannot be correct.

OR

B. The relativistic description of your problem does not apply in any way, and therefore cannot be correct.

You're mixing the two lines of argument, and flip-flopping between the two whenever is convenient.

The only flip-flopping is your switching forms of physics calculations for identical conditions. Exposing such flip-flops requires addressing them using whichever physics you might choose to argue in each case. It is not I that flip-flops. It is you. My response must follow your claims.

Having completely failed with argument (A), it would seem that you only have argument (B) left. In that case, you should propose your alternative solution as required by argument (B) and be prepared to defend your solution.

I have only failed to get ou to be honest in your responses and to actually address the basic physics issues. You choose to hide behind the claims of Relativity as its own jproof. That is inadequate. If Relativity cannot stand the test of basic physics then it does not describe reality.

You're wasting your time attempting to attack relativity on its own turf (A), since your understanding of the theory is so flawed that your arguments can be easily dismissed by anybody with even a moderate understanding of the theory. You'd be much better off simply arguing that relativity is completely wrong, and proposing an alternative view.

We note again, you have failed to address the physics issue or anwer my question. That in itself has signifigant meaning. Far more meaning than your repeated efforts to cast false innuendo at me and my understandings.

Below, I will point out your latest errors in what you think relativity says.

You have failed to apply the theory of relativity in deriving these "choices". Anybody who knows relativity would agree that both choices are wrong. Compare my correct answers, near the top of this thread.

No. What you are saying is if you do not follow my lead and distort the situation you don't get my distorted results.

MacM:“ In choice #1 there is no time dilation and no length contraction. ”

Which is wrong.

I am giving you options to treat equal conditions equally. I don't care which one you choose.

MacM:“ In choice #2 there is length contraction and a dilated time but not between clocks as per Relativity. Such dilation only has meaning in the view of a universal time background. ”

Which is also wrong.

Same response as immediately above.

MacM:“ YOUR GENERATION OF THE FALSE ILLUSION OF TIME DILATION:

Frame "A" at rest, relative velocity of "B" = 0.9c, distance = 9 LHr, time accumulated 10 Hr.

Frame "B" at rest, relative velcoity of "A" = 0.9c, distance = 3.92 LHr, time accumulated 4.35 Hr.

Result "A" = 10 Hours, "B" = 4.35 Hours. WOW. Time dilation between clocks. ”

Yes.

Fantastic. But I am sure you didn't mean to agree with my statement that it is your method of generating the FALSE Time Dilation.

The distance 0.9 light hours was specified in A's frame. When we go to B's frame, we must correct for the change in frame. That is the justification.

I guess you missed this elementary point.

Not at all. You missed the follow on which says if you do that for "A" you must also do that for "B". You now have two distances from B to A, two times for clock B and two distance or A to B and two times for A. Both views exist simultaneously since it is a relative velocity case.

You cannot have relative velocity without reciprocity. Reciprocity destroys Relativity. But reciprocity is an inherent physical principle which cannot be ignored.

It is interesting, is it not, that we always get this kind of comment from you immediately following where I have addressed the very issue you claim has not been addressed? As usual, I have actually avoided nothing. You have just blotted out my explanation from your memory.

Talk is cheap. You have yet to justify claiming time dilated when in fact the time differential is trip time to distance related with a constant tick rate of the clocks.

Conditions in each frame are not the same.

Show where they differ. Each at rest each with 0.9c relative velocity. If I ask you what is the distance between two observers where one is at rest with 9 miles between them and the other is viewed to have a velocity of 0.9c you would claim 3.92 miles.

You would claim that regardless of which clock I told you was at rest. that is recijprocity. Does or does not reciprocity cause the claimed affects of Relativity to cancle and produce no systemic measurabel affect between observers? Yes or No.

If I'm not allowed to apply a correct theory to answer your question, then I can't answer it. Sorry. I'll wait for your permission to use relativity.

Finally. You are saying Relativity cannot be made fit physical reality. Because all I have asked you do is to apply the rules of Relativity equally in all frames.

It is only when you allow yourself the latitude to disregard basic unalterable physical principles that you create these false illusions.

It's your test, not mine. Any failings are yours.

Sure. We note your inability to affectively defend Relativity.

You previously agreed with a number of statements regarding what relativity says about simultaneity. I refer you to those. Flip flop.

You again distort the agreement with what Relativity claims with what I have agreed is reality. My claims have been and are that those claims are shown false.

Now address that issue not ones of your own choosing.

By denying these facts, you are retracting something you agreed to at the start of the thread. Flip flop.

By claiming them as facts and distorting the meaning of agreeing as to what Relativity claims to mean I have agreed with those claims is dishonest.

Your application of the theory of relativity is incorrect, and your "reciprocity" is not part of the theory of relativity.

And therein is the failing of your theory. If your theory cannot pass a basic physics test then it is flawed.

You're mixing frames, as I already explained.

False as I have said I am treating all frames with common properties with the same mathematics. You are not.

How can you so openly lie about previously agreed statements.

How can you believe that you can distort agreeing with what Relativity says means agreeing with Relativity. That is assinine.

You previously agreed that the theory of relativity says that if two clocks start simultaneously in one frame they CANNOT start simultaneously in a relatively-moving frame. Do you remember that? I thought not.

Of course I do. Now address the fact that I said I disagreed with what Relativity said. Also deal with the issue of using precalculated relavistic timers to overcome the simultaneity issue.

I wait for you to say it cannot be calculated. HeHeHe. If it can be calculated then it can be overcome by the use of my timer system. End of arguement. Either Relativity works or it doesn't. If it works then simultaneity is eliminated and the clocks start simultaneously.

(Do not try to side step the issue by claiming the view of each clock starting by the other observer in any manner affects the actual time such clocks start. It does not.)

This test is simply another example of the same issue which has bugged you for two years (and probably 50 years, in fact).

It doesn't bug me at all. I am quite comfortable in my understanding that Relativity is horseshit. I only await your adequate response to my questions. I rather enjoy watching you squirm trying to justify this bullshit.

Physics indeed. Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, Sand Man. What other fairy tales do you believe?

Please make an effort to understand the relativity of simultaneity. Why coast through your whole life with your brain in neutral?

Again you fail to address the issue and provide answers.

Do precalulated relavistic timers start and stop clocks physically at the same time? Do not address this as "From X's view". X's view has nothing to do with the physics of the clock.

If they do not start and stop in accordance with such timers then Relativity has already failed. If they do then your claim that simultaniety is impossible is shown false.

It would seem the claims of Relativity are doomed in either case.

We'll note that you choose to continue to cite Relativity as it's own proof and fail to address basic physics issues.

 

[MacM]

ok....so you can not transform into the frame of a photon?

So in a way the faster the object travels the slower it goes until eventually it is stopped as it's velocity becomes zero when it achieves 'c'.

You are getting close to understanding the problem.

This issue goes to my thread entitled "Arguement for a Decellerating Universe". There I show that the faster you accelerate away the quicker you come closer and at high relavistic speed the change in distance between observers changes at many 1,000's of v =c.

Can you visualize the 13.5 Billion light years contracting in a matter of lets say a hundred years of final acceleration approaching v = c? That would produce a distance change rate equivlent to 130 million c and in the wrong direction.!

What a joke.

 

[RawThinkTank]

Stop fighting all of U smarties, instead try answer this with Ur teeny tiny minds.
<iframe src="http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=706149#post706149" width=700 height =300></iframe>

 

[Quantum Quack]

MacM,
I asked my self the other day this question:

Why is there a need for the transforms that involve these interesting outcomes?

The reason is quite simple:
To support the notion that lights VELOCITY is invariant to all observers regardless of frame....

Now the whole problem is to do with the notion that light has velocity. If light has velocity and another object is moveing then normally the velocity is either subtracted or added to....simple really.....so to accomodate invariance of lights VELOCITY [ thought of as having velocity] the transforms are essential.

Now to argue against the transforms is essentially to argue against the notion of lights velocity....and unless you can provide a way of getting past this issue of v=c then the transforms have to stay.
In a nut shell this seems to be the bun fight, and not just tick rates and simultaneousness etc...It simply comes down to the issue of light having velocity.
The transfroms have to arrive at zero or 2 dimensionals because they are attempting to prove something from a premise that is flawed. So the brilliant Lorentz and collegues have created a math that proves their error in observation. By creating a photon out of mass when it strikes the velocity of 'c'. The error shows the light so to speak...ha

So if you don't believe in length contraction/time dilation relationships as put by SR then you are saying you don't beleve in either lights invariance or lights invariant velocity....and I would suggest that it is the issue of velocity over distance that is the key to this whole mess of ignorant of error cover up as lihts invariance is able to be sustained with out the need for velocity in travel.

 

[Quantum Quack]

wow ...that was a mouthful...hey?

 

[MacM]

wow ...that was a mouthful...hey?

Yea, but very much on target. I have said many times Relativity is based on a mis-interpretation of the signifigance of the measurements that the velocity of light was invariant and the further conclusion that all of the material universe must obey the unique propagation properties we saw in light.

 

[MacM]

James R and READERS:


Lets cut through all the mumbo-jumbo and lengthy personal attacks and show the actual summary as it must be.

While it is obvious to any grade schooler what Relativity is doing by imposing different distances on the clocks travel and then to claim that clock "B" has fewer ticks per mile at the same relative velocity, hence time is dilated.

That is a short sighted analysis used simply to justify the concept of time dilation.

It has been shown that for the clock to accumulate 4.35 hours time in a trip of 3.92 lHrs distance at 0.9c, the clock will tick at a rate of 1/second and accumulate 15,692 seconds.

Where "A" claims "B" traveled 9 LHr distance at 0.9c and should therefore record, accumulate and display 10 Hours time or 36,000 seconds, hence time dilation is proven, is simply false.

PROOF: The above claim has each clock ticking at a rate of 1 tick per second but claims these tick rates are different. i.e. - the interval between ticks or seconds are different or dilated.

If we simply have a light flash by each clock each second or by any other means record and compare the tick rates of each clock during the test it can be seen that the time interval between ticks is identical.

Therefore one would not conclude time has dilated at all but that "B" would have seemed to have tunneled or traversed space where evaluation by d = vt would show that it traveled a different distance and that time had not been altered at all.

The only alternative to this conclusion would be to see that more miles are being traversed per tick and hence the velocity would no longer be seen as 0.9c but 2.06 c.

But the tick rate of one tick per second and the identical time interval of seconds is proven and there can be no conclusion of time dilation.

The assertion and assumption of time dilation as the answer to this perverted mathematics is simply and proveably false.

You lose James R.

 

[geistkiesel]

James R and READERS:


Lets cut through all the mumbo-jumbo and lengthy personal attacks and show the actual summary as it must be.

While it is obvious to any grade schooler what Relativity is doing by imposing different distances on the clocks travel and then to claim that clock "B" has fewer ticks per mile at the same relative velocity, hence time is dilated.

That is a short sighted analysis used simply to justify the concept of time dilation.

It has been shown that for the clock to accumulate 4.35 hours time in a trip of 3.92 lHrs distance at 0.9c, the clock will tick at a rate of 1/second and accumulate 15,692 seconds.

Where "A" claims "B" traveled 9 LHr distance at 0.9c and should therefore record, accumulate and display 10 Hours time or 36,000 seconds, hence time dilation is proven, is simply false.

PROOF: The above claim has each clcok ticking at a rate of 1 tick per second but claims these tick rates are different. i.e. - the interval between ticks or seconds are different or dilated.

If we simply have a light flash by each clock each second or by any other means record and compare the tick rates of each clock during the test it can be seen that the time interval between ticks is identical.

Therefore one would not conclude time has dilated at all but that "B" would have seemed to have tunnel or traverse space where evaluation of d = vt would show that it traveled a different distance and that time had not been altered at all.

The only alternative to this concslusion would be to see that more miles are being traversed per tick and hence the velocity would no longer be seen as 0.9c but 2.06 c.

But the tick rate of one tick per second and the identical time interval of seconds is proven and there can be no conclusion of time dilation.

The assertion and assumption of time dilation as the answer to this perverted mathematics is simply and proveably false.

You lose James R.

MacM, they don't want to read your summary.

If the speed of light emitted from a moving frame has a velocity of C wrt the "vacuo", then changing the direction of the emitted photons from 0 to pi/2 shouldn't alter the motion attributes of the light. 'Shouldn't' being he operative word here.

If, it is shown that light emitted transverse to the direction of motion does retain a component of the frame momentum, while all other angles do not would leave us where?

I agree that there is the implicit assumption that the momentum component along the direction of motion of the frame is retained, relativity needs this to happen, so instinctivley this component is retained, a la Michelson-Morely.

 

[Persol]

If the speed of light emitted from a moving frame has a velocity of C wrt the "vacuo", then changing the direction of the emitted photons from 0 to pi/2 shouldn't alter the motion attributes of the light. 'Shouldn't' being he operative word here.

Sadly, this is once again wrong... and once again experiments disagree with you.

 

[Quantum Quack]

MacM is there a simpler way to show the time and length transform paradox?

In another thread I have been trying to describe how the transforms effect teh entire universe perpective and not just local space.

For example if an object is travelling from one side of the universe to another as our object approaches 'c' transforms will tell you that the distance to travel is reduced enourmously so much so that when the object achives 'c' no matter at what space time co-ordinate it will have achieved it's destination. This invloves the entire universe and not just some paultry 10 or so Light years...etc......

so when we talk of clocks at relativistic velocities the entire universe dimension is involved thus from what I can tell the whole process breakes down when thinking about flat 3 dimensional space. Simply becasue as velocity increases space becomes less than 3 dimensional.

SR I think falls into a really big hole when the transforms are applied to conventional distances in 3 dimensional space.

The transforms generate a collapsed 3 dim space and eventually a universal 2 dimensions.......so how this can be applied to small conventional distances is beyond me.....
And of course your clock issue is all about velocity and the distance covered. And I woudl ask this ver y simple question?

At the velocity of 0.9'c' held for one hour how far does our object travel?

a) in the objects frame?
b) in an Earth frame?

 

[MacM]

At the velocity of 0.9'c' held for one hour how far does our object travel?

a) in the objects frame?
b) in an Earth frame?

4.698E¹¹m
1.08E¹²m

Keep in mind Relativists like to try and protect Relativity by imposing the v < = c limit to preclude your 3D to 2D transition.

However keep in mind that even at 0.9c the spatial contraction is 1/gamma = 0.435 or a dimensional change of the currently observed universal radius of 13.5 Billion light year to 5.87E⁹ Lyr.

If you accelerate at 1 g or 9.8m/sec² for 1 year you actually exceed v=c by 3%.

You reach 0.9 c in approximately 11.3 months and traveled 0.46 Lyr by d = at²/2. Therefore you will have appeared to traversed 7.6 BILLION Light years in less than one year?

Who says nothing can go FTL. That equates to over 7 billion c.

Note also that space has contracted behind you also such that the faster you receed the closer you get back to earth.

 

[Persol]

Yeah that's great and all... but is completely unfounded.

 

[MacM]

Yeah that's great and all... but is completely unfounded.

Sure Persol. You might just try the mathematics yourself. If you find I have flawed then you could post something meaningful and actually be justifiably derogatory. Otherwise we note that you have not contributed anything of scientific value here.

 

[Persol]

Ok, dumbass... show us the math for:
Keep in mind Relativists like to try and protect Relativity by imposing the v < = c limit to preclude your 3D to 2D transition.
If you accelerate at 1 g or 9.8m/sec2 for 1 year you actually exceed v=c by 3%.

 

[MacM]

Ok, dumbass... show us the math for:
Keep in mind Relativists like to try and protect Relativity by imposing the v < = c limit to preclude your 3D to 2D transition.
If you accelerate at 1 g or 9.8m/sec2 for 1 year you actually exceed v=c by 3%.

I know how dumbass. I posted the data. Don't expect me to do your work for you. If you think I am wrong then show us your calculation. That calculation is assuming linear acceleration at 1 g for 1 year.

It does not imply you can or will exceed the speed of light. It only shows that to achieve high relative velocity only takes less than one year. That is why I reduced the time to 11.3 months is to saty below v = c and at 0.9c.

The result being the distance between you and the edge of the known universe will have been reduced by billions of light years in less than a year.

That is the only issue.

Address it.

 

[Persol]

Yet again... in what frame of reference? In the ship's frame you'll have length dilation. On the planet's frame you'll have a ship unable to meet that acceleration.