Is time universal? NO (and its proof)

[Billy T]

MacM, I usually just ignore you and your mindless ranting because its obvious you don't care much about reason and experiment....

You are more clever than me in many things. I will try to follow your example more. When I am borred, I will try to make sense out of alphabet soup messages - may be easier. (See my last post trying to make sense out of just one short phrase of MacM's.).

 

[DaleSpam]

Yes and No. I have made the point (if you missed it) that in my view relativity survives. However, it is not A.E.'s relativity. Reciprocity does not exist. Velocity becomes frame dependant and length invariant compared to reciprocity, velocity invariant and length frame dependant.

Then derive it. Show from your postulates how you get to time dilation without length contraction. From what I can tell you have no evidence to support your postulates and your conclusions don't follow from your postulates.

What I said a while back is I think it would be most interesting to look at the universe and what we would expect emperical data to show under these conditions rather than argue which view is valid.

It is entirely possible that some distinction might be noted which could differentiate these views from existing data. Keep in mind that at least at this juncture it seems that data supportrs my view better than SRT.

Whatever. At this juncture your theory isn't even self-consistent.

It seems far less intrusive to physics to retain physical parameters and let the calculated value vary than it does to alter physical parameters. Time and distance are physical parameters, veloicty is a calculated value.

That is an assumption you are making. Relativity makes the opposite assumption, that velocity (c) is the physical parameter and time and distance are calculated values. Relativity is at least clear about the fact that it is making such an assumption. In your eagerness to jump to your conclusions you aren't even aware of all the assumptions you are making.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

DaleSpam,

“Then derive it. Show from your postulates how you get to time dilation without length contraction.

Don't be funny. I have only taken emperical data and followed logical physics conclusions. This has nothing to do with postulates or a theory.

Whatever. At this juncture your theory isn't even self-consistent.

If true that would put it equal to SRT then?

That is an assumption you are making. Relativity makes the opposite assumption, that velocity (c) is the physical parameter and time and distance are calculated values.

Then the author had a very limited understanding of physics. He probably was some sort of clerk someplace.

 

[Raphael]

That is an assumption you are making. Relativity makes the opposite assumption, that velocity (c) is the physical parameter and time and distance are calculated values. Relativity is at least clear about the fact that it is making such an assumption. In your eagerness to jump to your conclusions you aren't even aware of all the assumptions you are making.

I am sure my problem is a problem with the usage of terminology, but I will ask just the same.

Why would velocity be non-calculated when it is impossible to obtain a value for velocity without calculating it from other measured values? Why would time and distance be calculated when calculations only apply if a velocity is known, which is impossible to obtain independant of other measurements?

 

[Billy T]

...Then the author had a very limited understanding of physics. He probably was some sort of clerk someplace.

First sentence is false, but second is true and funny. Thanks. - I see you are still good for laughs, even if I have pretty much quit making fun of your posts.

Happy new year, as a dogedly stuborn man, it should be a good one for you.

 

[Billy T]

...it is impossible to obtain a value for velocity without calculating it from other measured values....

I don't think this true. Velocity, for me, is defined as the first time dirivative of position, but that does not support you statement.

In fact the only car speedometer I ever took apart contradicts it. It was a spinning magnet that induced a voltage in a coil that drove an eletric meter movement which was calibrated in mph. There are many other ways to measure velocity directly. - A policeman with radar gun did it to me not too long ago.

 

[Billy T]

I don't need any more money - too much just gets you into more complex trouble. Thus I give a good invention idea (caused by my last post) away:

The cost of a spinning cable connected to the car's wheels and the mechanical failures etc. of typical speedometers may be higher (and less accurate as tires wear) that an "optical mouse" that looks down at the road. The output would intergrate better with the trend to integrate car controls in to a computer system too.

Perhaps the BMW etc already does this?

PS, however if idea is new, and you market it, I will not refuse a small royality.

 

[DaleSpam]

Don't be funny. I have only taken emperical data and followed logical physics conclusions. This has nothing to do with postulates or a theory.

You really need to go back to elementary school and do a science fair project. You apparently don't even know what a theory is.

If true that would put it equal to SRT then?

:bugeye: MacM, the worst thing about this is that you really think your ideas are equivalent to SR and there is some big conspiracy in the scientific community to suppress your brilliant view. If you could actually disprove SR, either with logic or data, you could easily publish your ideas in any scientific journal you wanted. You would instantly be the most renowned living physicist. The fact is that you have yet to form a coherent argument against SR or for your own ideas. All you have is persistent repetition of your assertions.

You claim that SR is illogical, but it is mathematically self-consistent which is the final arbiter of logic. You claim that relativity is not realistic, but it accurately predicts the outcome every experiment which is the final arbiter of reality. You claim that your views are logical, but cannot back it up with a mathematical framework. You claim that your views are more realistic, but you have not proposed an experiment that would test it. Finally, you claim (this is my favorite) that Occham's razor favors your idea when you cannot even explicitly list your own postulates.

Keep trying MacM. You may eventually get there, but you have a long way to go.

-Dale

 

[Raphael]

I don't think this true. Velocity, for me, is defined as the first time dirivative of position, but that does not support you statement.

The word calculation tends to bring to mind an image of an active use of math. Perhaps it would be clearer to say it is impossible to obtain a value for velocity without interpretting it from other measured values?

If that didn't clear up our disagreement, then I will be happy to respond again and explain that the only active measurement in your speedometer (non-optical) is a cycle of rotation and with other known measurements the velocity of the vehicle is interpreted.

 

[Billy T]

The word calculation tends to bring to mind an image of an active use of math. Perhaps it would be clearer to say it is impossible to obtain a value for velocity without interpretting it from other measured values?

If that didn't clear up our disagreement, then I will be happy to respond again and explain that the only active measurement in your speedometer (non-optical) is a frequency of rotation and with other known measurements the velocity of the vehicle is interpreted.

No, to continue with the old fashion speedometer design counter example, it is not as you suggest making a measurement of rotation speed (but that is a "directly measured speed" also I might note, however not a linear one.) For example, a stronger magnet rotating more slowly could generate the same EMF or a weaker one rotating at the same angular rate with more turns on the pickup coil, etc. would generate the same EMF.

Thus I think it false to imply that the real measurement is rotation rate and from this the speed is calculated. To really dirve the point home hard: please calculate the car speed if you know the speedometer cable is rotating at 1000rpm.

No - it is a entire system that directly measures the speed. Also note the the cable rotation rate is much higher than the tire rotation rate, but the ratio is arbitary. What rotation rate do you think is the measurement from which the speed is calculated? Even the tire axial rotation rate is not a reliable thing to calculate speed from, but is used until replaced by my "optical mouse" speedometer invention.

What would you claim is the true measurement (from which speed is calcuated) if an "optical mouse" speedometer were used?

 

[DaleSpam]

I am sure my problem is a problem with the usage of terminology, but I will ask just the same.

Why would velocity be non-calculated when it is impossible to obtain a value for velocity without calculating it from other measured values? Why would time and distance be calculated when calculations only apply if a velocity is known, which is impossible to obtain independant of other measurements?

Hi Raphael,

The idea is that velocity is distance times time. If you know any two you can calculate the third. Currently, the thing that we can measure most accurately is time. In other words, an atomic clock ticks at such a very well-defined and stable rate that we always try to use it as a standard to define other things. So if we can find some physical object that has a very well-defined and stable length we can use our time standard and our length standard to calculate speed. However, if we can find something that has a very well-defined and stable speed we can just as easily use our time standard and our speed standard to calculate length.

It turns out that the speed of light is much more stable and well-defined than the length of any material object that we could use as a standard. So, the meter is the calculated value with time and speed being the standard references.

-Dale

 

[Raphael]

No, to continue with the old fashion speedometer design counter example, it is not as you suggest making a measurement of rotation speed (but that is a speed also I might note, however not a linear one.) For example, a stroger magnet rotating more slowly could generate the same EMF or a weaker one rotating at the same angular rate with more turns on the pickup coil would generate the same EMF.

Thus I think it false to imply that the real measurement is rotation rate and from this the speed is calculated. ...

I had troubles with the term "frequency of rotation" and editted to "cycle of rotation", as no time data is being taken by the system. Obviously not fast enough though.

No - it is a entire system that directly measures the speed.

The data collected by the system is not the speed of the vehicle. The data is interpretated by the system to give a measurement of speed.

What would you claim is the true measurement (from which speed is calcuated) if an "optical mouse" speedometer were used?

Honestly, I don't know how an optical mouse works. I have never given it two cycles of thought.

 

[Billy T]

to Raphael: I too have been editing earlier post, please read again and answer my 1000rpm question.

 

[Billy T]

...The data collected by the system is not the speed of the vehicle. The data is interpretated by the system to give a measurement of speed....

I will not dispute that, but think it always true of most "direct measurements" I.e. "interpretation" is always required. It is just more complex in some "direct measurements" than in others. Some system is always used. That does not make it a derived, indirect, or calculated measurement.

For example to measure the length AB below

A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>B
you must interpret "where is the begining, where is the end, what is the meaning of the scratches on the stick you are using, etc.

PS by "data collected" I assume that in addition to the cable rotation rate, the tire size, the cable / axial rotation ratio, the magnet strength, the coupling coefficient of the B field, the number of pickup coil turns... etc all the system details needed to calculate are what you are calling the "data collected." - This is silly - the speed is directly measured, not all these detailed "direct measurements" are even known, much less used in any calculation.

The speedometer maker ran a prototype in a car, and calibrated the final dial. Period. - a direct measurment device produced.

 

[Raphael]

Hi!

The idea is that velocity is distance times time. If you know any two you can calculate the third. Currently, the thing that we can measure most accurately is time. In other words, an atomic clock ticks at such a very well-defined and stable rate that we always try to use it as a standard to define other things. So if we can find some physical object that has a very well-defined and stable length we can use our time standard and our length standard to calculate speed. However, if we can find something that has a very well-defined and stable speed we can just as easily use our time standard and our speed standard to calculate length.

It turns out that the speed of light is much more stable and well-defined than the length of any material object that we could use as a standard. So, the meter is the calculated value with time and speed being the standard references.

Your entire argument is based on the redefining of the meter in 1983? Bleh.

 

[Raphael]

The speedometer maker ran a prototype in a car, and calibrated the final dial. Period. - a direct measurment.

End users are delightful folk.

Does the speedometer display the correct speed if the car is not moving but the tires are spinning? Does the speedometer display the correct speed if the car is moving but the tires are not spinning? If I place tires with twice the circumference of my old tires on my car, will the speedometer display the correct value?

The speedometer is a direct measurement of nothing but a cycle of rotation.

Thus I think it false to imply that the real measurement is rotation rate and from this the speed is calculated. To really dirve the point home hard: please calculate the car speed if you know the speedometer cable is rotating at 1000rpm.

You would need to tell me the ratio for the wheel/cable as well as the circumference of the tire.

 

[DaleSpam]

Your entire argument is based on the redefining of the meter in 1983? Bleh.

What's wrong with that?

The point is about stability and reliability of a standard. The speed of light is much more stable and reliable than the dimensions of any physical object. Therefore, speed is the standard (non-calculated value) and distance is calculated from speed and time. The '83 decision was simply a recognition that the chunk of metal they were using wasn't the best standard available.

I don't know what else you could possibly have meant in your original comment.

-Dale

 

[MacM]

You really need to go back to elementary school and do a science fair project.

Been there done that and came out tied for 2nd place 1957. so there. Ha.

You apparently don't even know what a theory is.
:bugeye:

And you obviously have run out of physics respnses and now must do the normal for this forum which is cast innuendo.

MacM, the worst thing about this is that you really think your ideas are equivalent to SR and there is some big conspiracy in the scientific community to suppress your brilliant view.

Please do not profess to inaddition to knowing all there is to know about physics, also proclaim to read minds. You have no knowledge of what I think or believe in this regard. I'll only note that you have not satisfied the issue to the exclusion of my view.

If you could actually disprove SR, either with logic or data, you could easily publish your ideas in any scientific journal you wanted. You would instantly be the most renowned living physicist. The fact is that you have yet to form a coherent argument against SR or for your own ideas. All you have is persistent repetition of your assertions.

And you have only repeatedly ignored the issue which is the fact that SRT can only claim length contraction in another frame by ignoring the claim for time dilation made in the other. Such is physics crap. It is not physics and makes both less than physical reality.

UNLESS you agree that you believe in multiple realities.

The fact that time diatlion has been demonstrated emperically to be physical and length contraction has not been demonstrated should tell any person claiming to be intelligent that the correct consequences of relativity is an invariant length and a frame dependant velocity.

You claim that SR is illogical, but it is mathematically self-consistent which is the final arbiter of logic. You claim that relativity is not realistic, but it accurately predicts the outcome every experiment which is the final arbiter of reality.

False. SRT only predicts events in a one way view of the gamma function which also does not exclude an absolute concept as an alternative explanation.

You claim that your views are logical, but cannot back it up with a mathematical framework.

Actually I have and all you did was then argue that 100 cm could just as well be 1,000 cm if v = 17.32c instead of 1.732c. Ignoring that absence of any basis for such change and the fact that to do so you had to break any linkage to the rest frame where the distance was 100 cm and v = 0.866c.

You claim that your views are more realistic, but you have not proposed an experiment that would test it. Finally, you claim (this is my favorite) that Occham's razor favors your idea when you cannot even explicitly list your own postulates.

POSTUALTE 1: Light "Measures" invariant but is caused by photons being energy (frame) dependant and such measurement between frames is not measuring the same photon"

There YOU NOW HAVE one POSTULATE.

Logicalo Conclusion: Relativity as advocated is false.

Keep trying MacM.

I will. See my next thread "Time Dilation vs Clock Dilation".

You may eventually get there,

I am there you just have to catch up.

 

[Raphael]

What's wrong with that?

The point is about stability and reliability of a standard. The speed of light is much more stable and reliable than the dimensions of any physical object. Therefore, speed is the standard (non-calculated value) and distance is calculated from speed and time. The '83 decision was simply a recognition that the chunk of metal they were using wasn't the best standard available.

I don't know what else you could possibly have meant in your original comment.

-Dale

I was a bit disgruntled there for a while, as I was hoping your first reply was a bit more robust.

The 1983 meter definition creates circular definitions. By definition it is no longer possible to contradict the value of c. The speed of light, by definition, must always be 299 792 458 meters per second, because the meter is the distance light travels in 1 / 299 792 458 of a second. It is a logical quagmire.

 

[DaleSpam]

And you have only repeatedly ignored the issue which is the fact that SRT can only claim length contraction in another frame by ignoring the claim for time dilation made in the other. Such is physics crap. It is not physics and makes both less than physical reality.

False. You have repeatedly ignored my derivation of both time dilation and length contraction. I have never once derived length contraction by ignoring time dilation. You may be able to convince yourself that I have repeatedly ignored the issue, but the evidence is right here on this forum. Of course, I realize that you are about as big on evidence as you are on math.

Actually I have and all you did was then argue that 100 cm could just as well be 1,000 cm if v = 17.32c instead of 1.732c. Ignoring that absence of any basis for such change and the fact that to do so you had to break any linkage to the rest frame where the distance was 100 cm and v = 0.866c.

That was someone else. I just showed that your idea was incompatible with an invariant c. In any case, your one example with a 100 cm line, etc. hardly represents a mathematical framework.

POSTUALTE 1: Light "Measures" invariant but is caused by photons being energy (frame) dependant and such measurement between frames is not measuring the same photon; hence relativity as advocated is false.

There YOU NOW HAVE one POSTULATE.

Excellent. This is the most positive step you have taken yet. Now you just need to go from your postulate to any of your conclusions. By the way, a "hence" clause doesn't belong in a postulate since it indicates a conclusion. (Plus this one really proves me correct when I claimed your favorite proof is "Assume A; therefore A.")

-Dale