Funkstar,
Did you have a point with this? There's nothing there to support your view, you know...
Really? Since you either didn't or cannot read:
********************** Extract **************************
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm
A Primer on Special Relativity
An inertial coordinate system is a system of space and time coordinates with respect to which inertia is homogeneous and isotropic. Homogeneity implies that every material body free of external influence moves at constant speed in a straight line, and isotropy implies that if two identical material objects initially adjacent and at rest act to repel each other, they acquire equal speeds in opposite directions. Given one inertial coordinate system we can construct infinitely many others by means of arbitrary fixed translations and spatial rotations, which leave the speed of every object unchanged. Such an equivalence class of inertial coordinate systems is called an inertial reference frame. It's important to recognize that the definition of an inertial reference frame not only identifies inertial motion with straight paths of constant speed, it also establishes an operational definition of simultaneity (i.e., the synchronization of times at spatially separate events), because inertial isotropy implies that we can use identical physical objects acting against each other to synchronize clocks equidistant from their center of mass.
Given this definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame - called the rest frame of the particle - with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero).
This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience.
Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered
*********************************************************
Either (both) clocks can assume inertial rest and it is the other clock which has all velocity and undergoes all relavistic affects. This creates the enviornment where clock A ticks slower than clock B at the same time as clock B ticks slower than clock A.
The only time dilation affects EVER recorded in 100 years of relativity shows only ONE clock time dilated (i.e. - accumulates less time hence was ticking slower than the other over the same test period).
There is no evidence to support the reciprocity advocated by SRT, nor is it a reasonable proposition.
“ Posted by MacM:"Now smart ass. Suppose you justify the claim of spatial length contraction.
You mix frames by stipulating the velocity in your frame for the moving frame when it is grade school arithmatic to show that is not the actual case. ” (Highlited in red by Funkstar)
First of all, I don't know what the sentence in red is supposed to mean. "Stipulating the velocity in my frame for the moving frame"? What's that supposed to mean?
Herein lies your problem. You seem to have no ability to read and think. This means just what it says. You assume your velocity and apply it to another frame when in that frame the velocity would measure differently.
As demonstrated by the presence of meter markers along side the travel path of the moving observer.
Yes, in my frame the moving frame has the velocity it has. There's an invariant, in that in the ship frame, my frame has the same speed. Is this what you're attacking? On what grounds?
On the grounds that you ignore the prior physical fact as supported by emperical data, that the moving observer clock is ticking slower than the rest clock and you then use the accumulated time of the slow clock to compute d = vt and claim "d" has changed.
"d" did not change. "t" changed because of time dilation. "d" and "t" are seperate physical entities. Acknowledging that fact then there is no basis to assume spatial length contraction.
The physical fact is to the observer in the moving frame the rate of meter markers passing by stipulates a higher velocity than the one seen in the rest frame.
You have no basis to claim length contraction at all. It is nothing more than an AD HOC assumption to cause relativity to become superfically mathematically consistant.
Not at all. He doesn't "calculate" that he is "going" at any speed at all. Because in his frame of reference, he isn't moving. It doesn't matter that he can see other things moving around him: In the coordinate system centered on him, which is an inertial frame, he isn't moving. He does, however, see markers passing at the rate of 5.196E8 pr. second, something he can simply measure. But he can also directly (and easily) measure the speed of the markers to be 0.866c, and is therefore able to measure the distance between the moving markers as half a meter.
Oh, yea. On more careful consideration you will find your support for your arguement for length contraction is based on the very assumption of length contraction. You are basing your 0.866c velocity on the assumption of contracted space as measured by the ships ruler. Funny how you seem to think you can use assumptions of a theory to prove the theory.
Nice trick but it doesn't fly.
Meter markers are passing (as you have agreed) at the rate of 5.196E<sup>8</sup>/second. There is no basis for contracted space upon which to determine the markers are no longer the same physical 100 cm apart as compared to the rest frame or that the velocity is not 1.732c in the moving frame.
That is the assumption made using the rest frame velocity combined with the moving frame clock. You have to mix frames to fabricate a false illusion of length contraction.
Try again.
Absolutely not. Nowhere do the man on the ship use anything from my frame! The speed of the markers is measured directly in his frame (say, by timing them over a known distance such as the length of his ship). The length between them is measured directly from his frame (for instance, by measuring how long it takes for two markers to pass him, and using the speed he measured them to have.)
As I said you are a joke. You want to assume length contraction to create an arguement for length contraction. Try again. Stick with physics this time and not rhetoric.
Absolutely nowhere does the man on the ship need to use any quantity from my frame to measure the speed of the markers nor their relative distance!
Really. Then show that fact. Forget your 0.866c claim from the rest frame and show that the 5.196E<sup>8</sup> meter markers/second does not equate to 1.732c. Rembember you cannot ignore the dilated tick rate of the clock and use d = vt.
"v" is not measured the same in the moving frame and you cannot ignore that t does not equal t' tick rates. The differance in time of the trip is completely accounted for by the dilated tick rate - NOT a contraction of spatial distance.
3E8 earth meters at 1.732 * 3E8 earth meters/ship second. Of course, this is definitinely not the same as saying that something travels at 1.732c, because the dimensions are wrong - speed has dimension meters/second. The meters and seconds has to be from the same frame. The conversion leads to the ship moving at 0.866c in the earth frame, and the markers moving at 0.866c in the ship frame.
Correct. The meters and the seconds must be from the same frame, just as the meters/second must be from the same frame and you use meters/second from the rest frame to define velocity of the moving frame ignoring what the moving frame physics dictate, such as a dilated tick rate when computing the d = vt.
Absolutely not. In no way does the man on the ship measure the markers to be passing him with a speed of 1.732c! The only way he can see the 3E8 markers pass by in 0.577 seconds, with a speed of 0.866c, all of which are quantities measurable in his frame directly (he can be totally oblivous of the earth frame), is if there's half a meter between them (as he measures meters).
Sorry you need a course in simple arithmatic and basic physics. You need to be debriefed from the rhetoric you have been fed. There is no length contraction without mixing frame data. That assumption violates the evidence of the moving frame.
There's absolutely no reason at all for him to suddenly decide that his own meters aren't the real measure of distance.
More appropriately there is no reason for him to assume, or even see a differance in such measurement. It only exists because you have attempted to force it to exist by mixing rest frame velocity with moving frame tick rate.
So you are actually claiming that from the viewpoint of the ship the markers don't have a speed of 0.866c? What you're saying then, is that the relative velocity is not invariant between the two frames.
I am not making any such claim. I am showing the falicy of SRT claims of length contraction.
However, based on the emperical findings of time dilation of an accelerated clock (but not of an inertial clock that didn't accelerate) in cases of relative velocity, it would appear that is the case and we need to rethink our physics views.
Frankly that is no more odd than the assumption of "Velocity Addition", "Reciprocity" , "Relavistic Mass" or "Curved" or "Contracted" time-space; which is further stipulated to not exist in any fabric form. How does "Nothing" have physical properties and can be contracted and/or curved?
That's a truly extraordinary viewpoint! Do you have anything, anything at all to substantiate this claim, which goes against every bit of mechanical physics since Galileo?
You might try actual physics.
“ Posted by MacM:"Now stick your superority complex up your ass. ”
From a man who presumes himself a greater genius then virtually every physicist in the twentieth century (and apparently quite a few others), this is a somewhat comical statement.
I have made no such assumptions. The assumptions are being made by you. Those assumptions are that it matters not what basic physics principles dictate only the masters can be correct and not having a brain of your own you dare not attempt to apply any reason.
In any case, I note that you did not, in fact, reply to my comment that you falsely and deliberately stated that relativity predicted something it patently does not. Now, will you acknowlegde that relativity theory does not predict that two clocks taken apart and brought together again will have to show less time than each other, or will you not?
I dispute your assertion. As the extract posted above shows reciprocity infact requires precisely what I have merely quoted.
