Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[Quantum Quack]

I would give you a slightly different answer than Pete did in post 248 on the first question: The S in SRT, stands for "special" What make it special is that by definition it is restricted to ONLY inertial frames. This restriction was made to keep it more simple than the General Relativity Theory - that has consideralble more complex math etc. - I no long understand it well.

Pete is correct that acceleartion is NOT excluded for relativity theory, only from Special RT.

I note the important distinction...and thanks....but also note that I have always been approaching Speical Relativity [SRT] and not relativity theory [RT] persee.

 

[MacM]

it appears to this uneducated person that:
1] You have relativity of velocity [can switch frames ]

Yes.

2] You have relativity of Time dilation [can switch frames]

No. No emperical data exists showing reciprocity and reciprocity on it's surface is a ludricrus notion and would be a physical impossibility.

3] You do not have relativity of accelleration [can not switch frames]

Agreed. Just as you have shared relative velocity but not shared actual veloicty you have a shared "Apparent" accelertion but not a shared actual acceleration.

To have actual accelertion one must be subject to F = ma inducing v = at.

 

[Pete]

It doesn't. To hide behind Einstien and claim "He was smarter than you" is just that to hide behind authority.

I wasn't referring to Einstein, Mac. I was referring to those who tried alternative models, people like Lorentz, Fresnel, Fizeau, Michelson, Stokes, Planck, and many others.

 

[MacM]

The same observer accelerates in all inertial reference frames. Relativity does not say that the other observer accelerates.



*note*
It is possible to consider the accelerating observer's reference frame, but since it is an inertial reference frame there are things that happen in that frame that are artifacts of the frame's acceleration; they are not real. Such considerations will only serve to confuse this discussion, in which we are stuck on simpler ideas.

You sound as though you might actually agree that time dialtion in a resting frame is a measurement issue caused by an illusion of motion. I

f so we have no arguement.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes.



No. No emperical data exists showing reciprocity and reciprocity on it's surface is a ludricrus notion and would be a physical impossibility.



Agreed. Just as you have shared relative velocity but not shared actual veloicty you have a shared "Apparent" accelertion but not a shared actual acceleration.

To have actual accelertion one must be subject to F = ma inducing v = at.

\
My three points were attempting to describe the conventional view from the SRT'ists MacM. Thus pointing out what I believe is inconsistancy in the use of relativity. [ good for two but not good for three of those points]

 

[MacM]

I would give you a slightly different answer than Pete did in post 248 on the first question: The S in SRT, stands for "special" What make it special is that by definition it is restricted to ONLY inertial frames. This restriction was made to keep it more simple than the General Relativity Theory - that has consideralble more complex math etc. - I no long understand it well.

Pete is correct that acceleartion is NOT excluded for relativity theory, only from Special RT.

As I said above Billy, I'm not impressed. Acceleration isNOT excluded from SR. It is just more difficult to do. Your lack of actual understanding here should exclude you from coommenting in such threads.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Look I'll repeat them for Pete as well.....

it appears to this uneducated person that:
1] You have relativity of velocity [can switch frames ]
2] You have relativity of Time dilation [can switch frames]
3] You do not have relativity of accelleration [can not switch frames]

if assessing a theory that has this significant inconsistancy what would you think?

 

[MacM]

Agrees it is indeed the resultant velocity gained by acceleration that generates the dilations, however it is the acceleration or battle against inertia that is IMO the causation of "velocity induced dilation". And that inertial change can only occur with acceleration against inertia.

QQ,

Keep in mind at all times that time loss is an on going issue at the new veloicty, not just a matter of losing time during acceleration.

 

[Pete]

Pete I appreciate your point however I think you have slightly missed mine. That being to claim relativity for time dilation which I am confident SR usually does [ frame switching with out a problem] yet not include the same relative or symmetrical use of accelleration data is how all this problem that Mac M is trying to resolve is generated.

You need to go a step back. You will never resolve it if you refuse to understand the basic notions of galilean relativity, and if you refuse to consider letting go of pet notions.

 

[Pete]

Look I'll repeat them for Pete as well.....

if assessing a theory that has this significant inconsistancy what would you think?

Why is this inconsistent? Do you think that everything should be relative or nothing?
Do you also disagree with Galileo and Newton, who said that:

1 - The distance between events at different times is relative
2 - Velocity is relative
3 - Elapsed time is not relative
4 - Acceleration is not relative

 

[Quantum Quack]

You need to go a step back. You will never resolve it if you refuse to understand the basic notions of galilean relativity, and if you refuse to consider letting go of pet notions.

Pete I already know that there is no resolution...so really there is nothing to step back from....

SRT uses acceleration in an inconsitent to relativity way. Simple as that. It has to to justify it's results, and that is also simple to see.
If it treated accelleration in the same manner as it did the other key issues the results for SRT would be terribly incorrect.
So the lopsided use of accelleration although a startling contradiction to relativity still stands as it supports the outcomes of the theory that happen to coincide with some known empiral evidence.
So whilst I am taking your advice and stepping back as I always do I suggest that you take your own advice and do the same because IMO SRT is blatantly a fudge....and you can't see it.

 

[MacM]

So, you agree that all velocity is relative to something? But, you don't agree that the plane's velocity relative to the plane is zero?

You should read more slowly or carefully. I clearly stated that everyone is ALWAYS at rest to themselves, even during acceleration. But that is a nonsensical issue which has absolutely no bearing on the subject here.

You contradict yourself, Mac. But, the second sentence is sufficient:

"Compared to oneself, one never has motion and would forever be at rest."

That sentence is precisely what relativity says, and precisely what you seem to claim is ludicrous.

See above. The issue of time dilation revolves around velocity to a rest frame and to interject the obvious is meaningless.

Or perhaps you are confused by accelerating things? Well, you can consider velocity relative to something at a different time.

For example:
A car accelerates from zero to 100mph. The velocity of the car is 100mph relative to it's motion before accelerating.

Correct except I am not and have never been confused about any of this. Your implying I am or hve been is nothing but unsupported negative innuendo.

SR doesn't say anything different to Galileo in this case. Are you saying that Galileo was wrong?

I'm saying if you disagree with me you are wrong. Plain enough -

Exactly! That's exactly what Galileo and SR say - that you can't tell from any history of acceleration whether a thing is at rest, and that 'rest' is a relative term.

And you cannot tell by SR if it has accumulated less time than any other object. To claim it is ticking slower because itv has motion to you is to assume who accelerated in the past.

You do remember that you apply that standard when computing SR don't you. Why do you choose to not apply it in cases where you can have no emperical data to support your prediction?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Pete,
Would you consider the points mentioned below as valid description of the SRT position but fail to see how this amounts to an inconsistancy?

Originally Posted by Quantum Quack
it appears to this uneducated person that:
1] You have relativity of observer velocity [can switch frames ]
2] You have relativity of observer Time dilation [can switch frames]
3] You do not have relativity of observer accelleration [can not switch frames]

yes or no?

.
.
edit: have included a clarification "observer"

 

[MacM]

I wasn't referring to Einstein, Mac. I was referring to those who tried alternative models, people like Lorentz, Fresnel, Fizeau, Michelson, Stokes, Planck, and many others.

All of which Einstein plagerized or has been wrongfully given credit - i.e for E = mc^2. You should give more credance to the fact that applying the "Switched Frame" standard you are actually applying LR not SR but claim it is SR (more plagerizing).

 

[Quantum Quack]

All I am attempting to do to be honest is to "narrow" down MacM's complaint against SRT so that it can be debated properly without all the fudge , inuendo and bullshit that flys about on occassion.

 

[Pete]

So you would consider the points mentioned below as valid description of the SRT position but fail to see how this amounts to an inconsistancy?

yes or no?

The description is ambiguous, oddly worded, and incomplete. "Can switch frames", for example, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm also not completely sure what concept you're attaching to "relativity of Time dilation".

This description of SR is better:
1] The magnitude and direction of velocity is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
2] Time elapsed between events is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
3] The magnitude of acceleration is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
3] The direction of acceleration is not relative (will be the same in all reference frames with the same orientation)

Perhaps you can describe the perceived inconsistency?

 

[Quantum Quack]

The description is ambiguous, oddly worded, and incomplete. "Can switch frames", for example, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm also not completely sure what concept you're attaching to "relativity of Time dilation".

This description of SR is better:
1] The magnitude and direction of velocity is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
2] Time elapsed between events is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
3] The magnitude of acceleration is relative (will be different in reference frames with relative velocity)
3] The direction of acceleration is not relative (will be the same in all reference frames with the same orientation)

Perhaps you can describe the perceived inconsistency?

ok...thanks.....shall ponder a little and get back...

 

[Pete]

You should read more slowly or carefully. I clearly stated that everyone is ALWAYS at rest to themselves, even during acceleration.

So why, exactly, do you say that it is ludicrous that SR says that any inertial reference can be considered to be at rest?

I'm saying if you disagree with me you are wrong. Plain enough -

As far as I can tell, you are disagreeing with yourself, but I suspect that's because I'm not following what you're thinking.

Please, stay away from time dilation for the moment - I'm trying to be clear about what you mean by your concept of "actual velocity," to understand why you distinguish between "motion" and relative velocity, and hopefully to establish a common understand of a reference frame in the context of Galileo's relativity.

 

[Pete]

You sound as though you might actually agree that time dialtion in a resting frame is a measurement issue caused by an illusion of motion.

Perhaps you should read what I said again. Some things (pseudo-forces) that occur in non-inertial reference frames are not real.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Ok ..First impressions when comparing the two posts are:
1] When discussing SRT we make the mistake of over simplifying what really is just an extension of GR [General Relativity] or vica versa.
2] In doing so we set the scene for over simplistic complaint against SR when in fact GR must be included before any complaint can be lodged.
3] Therefore all this arguement about SRT is really "kids fighting in a sandpit" type situation where by to really argue the case a full and complete understanding of GR is necessary so that SR is not over simplified.

ok first impressions so far... and I know MacM is not going to like them...
The problem is none of the posters to this thread are "stupid" all very intelligent and clever individuals [ except me maybe ha]
To claim inconsistancy as blatantly as I have and yet still get a counter indicates something that can only mean over simplification.

This means that GR and SR can not be treated in isolation but must be combined in some way to make the whole picture consistant and complete.

does this make sense to you Pete so far?