Is The Theory of Relativity Fatally Flawed?

[MacM]

James R,

Just how do you justify saying it was unrelated. It involved time dilation and the fact that you interjected my name in vain in that regard.

My view of time dilation and its true status and your failure to respond with actual physics answers to my charges are very much related.

[post=712913]Your Post in another thread on time dilation[/post]

 

[James R]

MacM,

I have already answered your questions several times. Here is a brief summary of the main point again.

We are dealing with one journey here, not two. According to A, B cover a distance of 9 light years in that one journey. A times how long it takes, and it takes 10 years for B to cover the distance. Yet when B turns up, B's clock only registers 4.35 years, instead of 10 years.

How is A to explain this? A knows the distance is 9 light years. A can easily check this. He just needs to lay 85.2 thousand million million metre sticks end to end, reaching from the spot where B finished his journey to where he started it.

B could not possibly cover a distance of 9 light years in less than 9 years, since if he did that he would be travelling faster than light, and everybody with a brain knows that is impossible.

Therefore, A concludes that something has happened to B's clock. It has run slow. Get that? Read it again. B's clock ran slow compared to A's clock. Read it again until you understand it. If B's clock had not run slow, then it would read 10 years, not 4.35 years. But it did run slow, so it only reads 4.35 years.

This is reality. This is one trip by one person. Not two different trips, as you keep claiming. To say it is two trips is just plain dumb.

What do we call it when two clocks have different readings for a single trip, children? Answer: time dilation. Say it slowly. Time dilation.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

I have already answered your questions several times. Here is a brief summary of the main point again.

We are dealing with one journey here, not two. According to A, B cover a distance of 9 light years in that one journey. A times how long it takes, and it takes 10 years for B to cover the distance. Yet when B turns up, B's clock only registers 4.35 years, instead of 10 years.

How is A to explain this? A knows the distance is 9 light years. A can easily check this. He just needs to lay 85.2 thousand million million metre sticks end to end, reaching from the spot where B finished his journey to where he started it.

B could not possibly cover a distance of 9 light years in less than 9 years, since if he did that he would be travelling faster than light, and everybody with a brain knows that is impossible.

Therefore, A concludes that something has happened to B's clock. It has run slow. Get that? Read it again. B's clock ran slow compared to A's clock. Read it again until you understand it. If B's clock had not run slow, then it would read 10 years, not 4.35 years. But it did run slow, so it only reads 4.35 years.

This is reality. This is one trip by one person. Not two different trips, as you keep claiming. To say it is two trips is just plain dumb.

What do we call it when two clocks have different readings for a single trip, children? Answer: time dilation. Say it slowly. Time dilation.

Thanks. You have just verified my claim that you only considered 1/2 the claims of Relativity to produce your result. You further ignore the issue of clock tick rate in your calculations.

We all know and see how you produce different accumulated time and it does not involve time being slowed down on either clock. That is a mis-nomer at best and a FRAUD upon reality.

As I have repeatedly pointed out a strobe light attached to each clock shows that the interval between flashes is identical, yet during the trip it can be seen that from A's point of view these flashes must occur every 6.896E⁸ meters. That is "B" would appear to be traveling 2.299 c.!

Since that is prohibited you are left to explain physically how these results are achieved in physical reality.

You have not addressed the issue. You have made simple FIAT declarations quoting SRT.

The physical reality is that both views exist simultaneously in the physical universe and BOTH must be considered if you are addressing physical reality of clocks and time dilation.

You do not do that.

Now address that fact that Relativity requires that if I compute the clocks time from the other observer's perspective the conditions reverses and that requires that for BOTH views to be real means BOTH clocks have to display two different accumulated times in a real universe.

 

[James R]

MacM,

Thanks. You have just verified my claim that you only considered 1/2 the claims of Relativity to produce your result. You further ignore the issue of clock tick rate in your calculations.

That is false. Clock B ticks slower than A in A's frame, and vice versa. Remember?

We all know and see how you produce different accumulated time and it does not involve time being slowed down on either clock. That is a mis-nomer at best and a FRAUD upon reality.

Fiat declaration.

As I have repeatedly pointed out a strobe light attached to each clock shows that the interval between flashes is identical, yet during the trip it can be seen that from A's point of view these flashes must occur every 6.896E8 meters. That is "B" would appear to be traveling 2.299 c.!

Actually, I think this is the first time you've mentioned the "strobe light" thing. And you're wrong again. The intervals between flashes are different in each reference frame.

The physical reality is that both views exist simultaneously in the physical universe...

Simultaneity is relative.

Now address that fact that Relativity requires that if I compute the clocks time from the other observer's perspective the conditions reverses and that requires that for BOTH views to be real means BOTH clocks have to display two different accumulated times in a real universe.

They do not display different times. All this has been explained to you four or five times now.

Your memory is fading.

Anyway, I think we're done here, since you have nothing new to offer.

 

[MacM]

MacM,

“MacM: Thanks. You have just verified my claim that you only considered 1/2 the claims of Relativity to produce your result. You further ignore the issue of clock tick rate in your calculations. ”

That is false. Clock B ticks slower than A in A's frame, and vice versa. Remember?

That is simply absolutely false. Your saying so does not create the requisite physics. As I have pointed out both d = vt conversions produce an equal tick rate. A strobe light of that tick rate would show that the two clocks tick in unison. The only way that "B" could complete the trip according to "A" is if "B" ticks have covered 3E⁸m/0.435 = 6.896E⁸m/tick or it is moving at 2.299 c!

You simply cannot declare the tick rate is changed it has not. You just calculated it when you divided 3.92 lhr by 0.9c and got 4.35 hours result.

“MacM: We all know and see how you produce different accumulated time and it does not involve time being slowed down on either clock. That is a mis-nomer at best and a FRAUD upon reality. ”


James R:"Fiat declaration.

So are you denying that the distance of the trip has been reduced? The fact is the less time accumulated on the clock is entirely based on having traveled a shorter distance and has nothing to do with time dilation.

“MacM: As I have repeatedly pointed out a strobe light attached to each clock shows that the interval between flashes is identical, yet during the trip it can be seen that from A's point of view these flashes must occur every 6.896E8 meters. That is "B" would appear to be traveling 2.299 c.! ”


James R:Actually, I think this is the first time you've mentioned the "strobe light" thing. And you're wrong again. The intervals between flashes are different in each reference frame.

Well I certainly disagree and I see no justification to make such a claim but suppose we allow that, Care to stipulate how many meters B travels between ticks? Once you calculate that then I want you to run the reverse d = vt for me please.

“MacM: The physical reality is that both views exist simultaneously in the physical universe... ”

James R:Simultaneity is relative.

Fiat and does not address the issue. These relavistic trips occur simultaneously. There is no way of disconnecting them. If they are not simultaneous then they are not relative.

“MacM: Now address that fact that Relativity requires that if I compute the clocks time from the other observer's perspective the conditions reverses and that requires that for BOTH views to be real means BOTH clocks have to display two different accumulated times in a real universe. ”

James R:They do not display different times. All this has been explained to you four or five times now.

Your memory is fading.

Your memory is fading. You have expoused the same BS each time and each time fail to address the issue by making unsupported statements.

Anyway, I think we're done here, since you have nothing new to offer.

I don't need to offer anything new, I only need you to properly address the same issue I have been asking forever. You have not done so.

You know it is OK to simply say " I can't answer that" and do so without admitting Relativity is false.

But do not continue to claim you have answered you have not.

You have made unsupported, and unsupportable, statements.

Your claim requires that d=vt changes and your claims refuse to address the reciprocity issue. That is not answering questions. It is dodging them.

 

[James R]

Yes, we're all done here. Nothing new has been added.

 

[MacM]

Yes, we're all done here. Nothing new has been added.

I would have to agree "YOU ARE FINISHED and so to is Relativity".

You have failed to resolve the physics problems given you and continue to simply cite the claims of SRT without any justification physically. You continue to ignore the fact that both views occur during the same relative motion period - Simultaneously.

You continue to claim time runs slower for one clock which defies reciprocity of simultaneous relative velocity.

You continue to ignore the absolute physical reality that d = vt states unambigously that the tick rate of each clock is the same.

No you have failed.

 

[Tristan]

Half this stuff you guys are talking about is an argument over semantics. Semantics and reference frames.

You are never going to aggree simply because you percieve what you are talking about as different. Hence, you are in different reference frames yourselves. Shit, I could get all philisopical on you, but it wouldnt solve anything.

 

[Tristan]

P.S.
Reality is Relative

 

[1100f]

The time dilation formula in SR stands alone but it is justified using the length contraction; which is the same formula:

t2 = t1(1 - v²/c²)^1/2 and l2 = l1(1 - v²/c²)^1/2 respectively.

Just who do you think you are kidding. Justify using the time dilation formula without any length contraction. It is pure mathematical fiat. No basis what-so-ever.

Real physical affects occur if you are calculating them or not.

Are you trying to deny that length contraction is not the basis? If so then you are forced to compound the affect by considering both affects in each case. Which as you already know would give you an incorrect answer because that just isn't done.

The basis of SR is that c is constant, it is the same in all frames.
From the fact that c is constant you get the Lorentz transformation and from Lorentz transformation you get the time dilation, length contraction, relativistic Doppler shift etc.

You may know what Relativity claims but you damn sure don't know basic physics or at least simply turn a blind eye to what Relativity claims vs any possible physical reality.

yeah, sure, you win I lose.

 

[James R]

MacM: You have failed, I win!
James R: You have fundamental misconceptions which you are never likely to overcome.
MacM: You haven't responded adequately to my objections!
James R: The only adequate response you will accept is to say you are right.
MacM: You're trying to prove relativity using relativity.
James R: No, I'm just showing you that your conception of relativity is wrong.
MacM: You're ignoring reciprocity!
James R: Your "reciprocity" concept is not part of the theory of relativity.
MacM: Yes it is, yes it is!
James R: No it isn't. You don't understand relativity.
MacM: I understand it better than you do. I have shown that relativity cannot be true in reality.
James R: No you haven't.
MacM: You have failed. I win!
...


Repeat ad nauseam.

 

[MacM]

Half this stuff you guys are talking about is an argument over semantics. Semantics and reference frames.

You are never going to aggree simply because you percieve what you are talking about as different. Hence, you are in different reference frames yourselves. Shit, I could get all philisopical on you, but it wouldnt solve anything.

It is semantics in a sense but I do not believe one can rightfully call "Impossible" "Counter Intuitive".

By claiming physical reality instead of observational Illusion of motion he is claiming impossibilities as realities.

 

[MacM]

P.S.
Reality is Relative

I would respectively disagree.

 

[MacM]

The basis of SR is that c is constant, it is the same in all frames.
From the fact that c is constant you get the Lorentz transformation and from Lorentz transformation you get the time dilation, length contraction, relativistic Doppler shift etc.


yeah, sure, you win I lose.

Four points you ignore.

1 - The invariance of light may well be an illusion and has nothing to do with actually being constant to every observer.

2 - There is no justification to assume that the matter universe is bound to function within the framework of EM waves or light.

3 - There are a good number of tests which have shown the failure of SRT to exist in physical reality. Those that do tend to confirm it have alternative explanations.

4 - Maintaining a sound absolute physical relationship such as d = vt and not just turning a blind eye and citing SRT as fact, you can see that the claims are in conflict with any possible reality.

 

[MacM]

MacM: You have failed, I win!
James R: You have fundamental misconceptions which you are never likely to overcome.

False. But you don't have the guts or foresight to change.

MacM: You haven't responded adequately to my objections!

James R: The only adequate response you will accept is to say you are right.

Because I am and you have not given any response at a physical level to counter that position. All you seem to be able to do is to quote SRT. You lack vision.

MacM: You're trying to prove relativity using relativity.

James R: No, I'm just showing you that your conception of relativity is wrong.

False. In a previous reply just above you commented that these views are not simultaneous. Yet you ignore the fact that to have relative velocity THEY MUST co-exist simultaneously. That is an unavoidable conclusion based on there being relative motion. Your claim they are not simultaneous is simply baseless and an obvious falacy. But you like to quote Relativity claiming Relativity of Simultaneity without actually thinking about what you are claiming.

MacM: You're ignoring reciprocity!

James R: Your "reciprocity" concept is not part of the theory of relativity.

For the forth or more time it is not my concept. Reciprocity is a common word which means reversable. I inertial relative motion the features claimed by Relativity are reversable, hence reciprocity applies.

The fact that it is apparently a new word to you doesn't make it inapplicable.

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-mull.htm

The rest of your post is your typical crap and we note once more that you have failed to address any of the physical issues I have raised.

 

[Persol]

MacM, science is about facts. You haven't presented any. The entire time you've been here you've been trying to show relativity as wrong by:
a) saying you don't like it
b) trying to show contradictions (and failing)
c) claiming that the previous two prove you are right

You can 'bump your gums' all you like... but you've never gotten close to actually showing any problems in the theory. To claim otherwise just demonstrates your level of selective memory.

 

[MacM]

MacM, science is about facts.

You bet and it would be nice if you started to talk facts instead of simply chiming in on the verbal treadmill of undeserved self-congratualtions.

We note once more your post makes no effort to address the physics issues I have raised.

 

[1100f]

Four points you ignore.

1 - The invariance of light may well be an illusion and has nothing to do with actually being constant to every observer.

2 - There is no justification to assume that the matter universe is bound to function within the framework of EM waves or light.

3 - There are a good number of tests which have shown the failure of SRT to exist in physical reality. Those that do tend to confirm it have alternative explanations.

4 - Maintaining a sound absolute physical relationship such as d = vt and not just turning a blind eye and citing SRT as fact, you can see that the claims are in conflict with any possible reality.

You said that length contraction is the basis of SR.
I said that the basis of SR is c being constant.
How does this answer that you give now shows that length contraction is the basis of SR?

 

[1100f]

Four points you ignore.

Four points you do not seem to understand

1 - The invariance of light may well be an illusion and has nothing to do with actually being constant to every observer.

1. Light is not invariant.
c is invariant. Which means that it is the same in all reference frames. Which means that it is constant for every observer.

2 - There is no justification to assume that the matter universe is bound to function within the framework of EM waves or light.

2. Where does it say that?
The fact that SR was discovered by using light doesn't mean that the matter universe is bound to function within the framework of EM waves or light.
In fact, the second postulate of SR states that all the physical laws are the same under Lorentz transformation. Before SR, only Maxwell's equation were invariant under Lorentz transformations while the laws of mechanics were supposed to be invariant under Galileo transformations. Thank you for supporting the views of SR.
All the 3 known interractions are all dealed within the framework of SR.

3 - There are a good number of tests which have shown the failure of SRT to exist in physical reality. Those that do tend to confirm it have alternative explanations.

3. No.
For example, most of the links that you gave begin with bad understanding of SR or GR. Today, even GPS use corrections given by GR.

4 - Maintaining a sound absolute physical relationship such as d = vt and not just turning a blind eye and citing SRT as fact, you can see that the claims are in conflict with any possible reality.

Even in non relativistic theory, d = vt is not something absolute. Since in Galilean relativity, if you have d=vt in one reference frame, in another referance frame you will have d'=v't. The difference with relativity is that what you get is not d'=v't but d'=v't'.

 

[Tristan]

Try and prove reality is not relative... Prove that there is one thing that you can say for absolute sure that it is true... Soon you discover that there is not one thing that is an absolute, because everything is compared to one another. We make absolutes by popular opinion, but they technically are not absolutes by the definition of the word.