Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[Billy T]

... The ONLY frames of importance in real physics is the accelerated frame vs it's initial inertial rest frame. ...

but in the post just made the moving frame had two intial rest frames, A & B and different acceleration away from each of them. So by your SR, M has two different physical contractions in M at the same time say 50% and 5.0001% HOW CAN THAT BE? or is that just "too silly for words" so you can give no reply.
Nor to post 612 examole of the same thing, with two cases contrasted by a very slow motion on a table top of one clock, b, in case 2 only which lasting 100 years but moved b only 1 meter. (Could have been only1mm and that would still force MacM's SR to use velocities wrt a different CRF for analysis of case 2 and increase the Velocity case 2 uses in the calculation of time tidaltion by 0.6C )!

 

[Billy T]

... When referring to 'space' we mean devoid of matter. ...

When I want to say that, I say "perfect vacuum." For me space is continuous, it does not stop/ cease to exist / when it comes to a piece of glass.

... light is the mediator between particles

Interesting. What is light mediating? Was there some dispute? I think not, so what do you mean by "mediating"?

...As mentioned in the last post, there is no physical length change of objects.

Good. We agree on this. MacM & QQ do not accept that POV. They think there is a physcal change but it is not observable to people in the moving frame as all their instruments that could detect the change have been change also. This make me think of an new way to show even MacM I thin how silly his POV is - See my next post.

...Alpha Centauri is about 4 ly distant. Traveling at .8c the distance appears contracted to 2.4 ly. Do you want enough fuel for an 8 yr trip or a 5 yr trip?

I think neither as do not plan to accelerate all the way. I plan to just coast for 99% of the trip. I.e. quickly accelerate and then when quite close, decelerate. That way it is easy to apply SR as mainly the trip will be inertial and I do not sleep well while accelearting.

None the less in the spirit of cooperation with a relative new comer to sciforums, I will say: Fuel for 5, not 8 year trip." As I also plain to use up many fewer of my heart beats than my stay at home twin brother who will be about 3 years older than me (measured by total heart beats used up) when I get back to Earth.

PS I note for MacM's benefit that when I am inertial on the way to Alpha C. it really is only 2.4 L years of travel away. - My reality has changed from that of my stay at home brother. In fact the entire universe has moved closer* to me but did not move for him. I am the newly moving one who had acceleration but the whole universe contracted, not me. MacM thinks the effects of SR act only on the guy / frame that accelerated, but they act on the entire universe for that guy. Perhaps this is because my POV is correct - it is the reality that changes, not any physics change in the entire universe.

-----------
*By varying amounts depending on the direction angle wrt to my progress towards Alpha C. (Closer "by zero" for that angle = 90 degrees.)

 

[MacM]

Lets see if I can falsify Billy T's ludricrus assertions.

"A", "B" & "C" are at common inertial rest.

A test course has been laid out where to the east there are mile markers stretched out for something greater than 1.6 lyr. To the west the mile markers are just over 3.2 lyr.

At 1.6 lyr and 3.2 lyr there are automatic photo controls.

The identical crafts "A" & "B" move beyond those markers to the correct distance to allow them to accelerate to their inertial test velocities so as to pass by "C" simultaneously and to go inertial simultaneoulsy according to "C".

When "A" & "B" are in postion they signal "C" and when "C" gets their signal he send "Start the Test" signal to "A" and "B" but delays the eastern signal such that by light travel time the signals reach "A" & "B" simultaneously according to "C"

They launch immediately and "A" achieves 0.2c as he crosses the 1.6ly line and goes inertial. Accordingly he should take 8 years to reach "C" according to "C" clock.v "A" sends "C" a confirmation signal to permit him to set his clock as well.

"B" also launched and reached 0.4c and crossed the 3.2 lyr line simultaneously with "A" according to "C". "B" should also take 8 years to reach "C" according to "C's" clock. "B" also sent "C" a confirmation signal.

When "C" gets the confirmation signals he sets his "A" monitoring clock to 1.6 years since that is the time it took light from "A" to reach him. When he receives "B's" singal he sets his "B" monitoring clock to 3.2 years since that is how long it took that singal to reach him.

Now after 8 years both "A" & "B" pass by "C" simultaneously and all clocks transmit digital data to each other about what their clocks read and they stop their clocks.

During the timed trip "A" and "B" had a relative velocity (according to SR) of 0.55555c not 0.6c. Accordingly each sees the other dilated by a gamma = 1.202675589 and knowing each others distance and 8 years trip predict what their respective onboard clocks will read.

"A" predicts:
"B" = 6.6518 years
"C" = 7.8382367 years

"B" predicts:
"A" = 6.6518 years
"C" = 7.33212 years

"C" predicts:
"A" = 7.8382367 years
"B" = 7.33212 years
and from "C's" perspective predicts:

"A" to "B" must see mutual dilations at 0.6c or that each thinks the other will record 6.4 years.

Now in the final analysis there is only one frame where data is valid and that frame is the initial common rest frame where the clocks have been synchronized.

Even that frame is wrong about the A to B dilation because "C" is not physically in the Velocity Addition loop and sees 0.6c as their closing velocity.

The velocity addition of 0.5555c between A & B is not supported, nor is the 0.6c view from "C". The point is the only correct dilation is between a moving observer that accelerated away from an inertial rest frame.

Any number of zillions of observers moving with different velocities to "C" will be dilated different to "C" but until they have been synchromized it is meaningless and none of it relates to "A" or "B's" dilation to "C".

They will all have different dilations to "A" or "B" but must be synchronized to determine who has the most (unknown) absolute velocity.

That is what emperical data will support and the only thing it supports.

If you could synchronize two clocks with relative velocity but with unknown actual velocities you will find that one will be dilated vs the other and it matters not who does the synchronization. That is the dilation is NOT frame dependant it is absolute.

Each of the zillion other observers must also be referenced to a common rest frame and compare the respective dilations to get the correct value. Just as "A" & "B" above are not supported by emperical data neither will any number of other observers with relative velocity.

 

[Billy T]

Let’s assume clock “m” was at rest in my frame C and accelerated away parallel to the x-axis along the line y =1 and then became inertial so SR applies. I.e. clock m is now in frame M and relativistic to me in frame C so the time is dilated by a factor of 2. (Two of my seconds are to me required for every one of his – sort of like the muons coming down to the surface, but not as extreme.)

Now let all clocks in both C and M be cesium atomic clocks so all clock counts # cycles to define a second. For clock m to be time dilated by 2, the cesium energy level in M are all with half the eV spacing as in frame C’s cesium. (That makes the emitted frequency half as great as in C or red shifts a near UV line to be now a red line emitted by the Cesium of frame M.)

Well, by pre arrangement my friend, also stationary in C, exactly on the x-axis (line y = 0 so as not to get hit by the clock m flying rapidly by on the line y =1) but very far from clock m’s original rest point in C, has a color camera and takes a photo of the cesium radiation coming from frame M cesium just as it passes (no relative velocity wrt to him for Doppler shift etc. at the instant it is passing by) as clock m flies by. If there really were a “Physics Change” in all the cesium atom energy levels, then that photo will show red light form the line that is UV line in my frame C.

Now there are many stars that have been accelerated (say by gravitational interaction, near collisions) wrt to our sun. (Their near collision was not with our sun but one of the other zillion stars of the universe but it made an acceleration wrt our sun. Some of these stars are, like clock m, are traveling just now as clock m was when photographed by my distant friend. I.e. have their velocity perpendicular to the line of sight between the star and our sun. They too, like clock m, should display the actual “physical change” in the energy levels of all their atoms according to MacM.- Red shifted spectral lines due to the “physical change” or time dilation’s “red shift” even though if you were traveling with them you could not see that the cesium is now emitting red lines, not UV. (So MacM says, but I do not know why? Does the color response of the human eye change too?)

Note that this ‘time dilation” color shift can ONLY make a red shift. There are many stars in co-rotating gravity bound systems (In fact most all are.) The center of mass of these pairs is typically moving wrt to the sun, as Alpha C. is. One member of the co rotating pare is with that C of M speed + the rotation and the other with that speed - the rotation speed. And this MacM postulated red only shift should seen in spectral resolved photographs even if the red shift was caused by ancient acceleration as it still remembered. (How only MacM knows, and he will not tell.)

SUMMARY: if there were a physical change in the energy levels of atoms DUE TO A HISTORIC ACCELERATION long over but somehow still “remembered”* (Violating “Physics is the same in all inertial frames.”) then astronomers would have noticed it. Doppler alone, without MacM’s red shift due to ancient acceleration a million years ago producing a permanent “physical change” in all the atomic energy levels** explains the observed spectral lines from the stars. MacM’s POV is not only silly but in conflict with astronomical observations.

-------------------
*MacM never offers any suggestion as how mere atoms can remember an acceleration that ended a million or more years ago.

**Even in hydrogen where these energy levels can be calculated by quantum theory extremely accurately, which would need to be changed too to keep the 10 or so significant figure agreement between experiment and theory. It is another example of how silly MacM’s SR is when even a theory needs to be changed! as you change to a frame that long ago was accelerated.

 

[MacM]

but in the post just made the moving frame had two intial rest frames, A & B and different acceleration away from each of them. So by your SR, M has two different physical contractions in M at the same time say 50% and 5.0001% HOW CAN THAT BE? or is that just "too silly for words" so you can give no reply.
Nor to post 612 examole of the same thing, with two cases contrasted by a very slow motion on a table top of one clock, b, in case 2 only which lasting 100 years but moved b only 1 meter. (Could have been only1mm and that would still force MacM's SR to use velocities wrt a different CRF for analysis of case 2 and increase the Velocity case 2 uses in the calculation of time tidaltion by 0.6C )!

Please point to the post you claim that has two different rest frames. Then perhaps I can straighten you out. Because that is never the case.

 

[MacM]

*MacM never offers any suggestion as how mere atoms can remember an acceleration that ended a million or more years ago.

Billy T when are you going to get the message. I'm not playing your chase me games. You either respond directly to my assertions or stop wasting our time.

Now I've answerred that question before when you asked the same thing about clocks. It was obvious that the number of accumulated ticks, be they clocks or vibrations of an atom, are accumulative and until you reset their counter by a synchronization those accumulative counts are definitely a memory.

Now answer my points. An accelerated frame accumulates less time for a trip thatn is calculated by the observer at the moivng frames original rest frame. That requires a physical change in the moivng frame.

Yes or No.

If you say no then gives a viable explanation just how the moving frame physically accumulates less time for the trip.

Don't need rheems or pages of scenarios or abstract discussions. Just answer ther question

 

[Billy T]

Please point to the post you claim that has two different rest frames. Then jperhaps I can straighten you out. Because that is never the case.

Post 698 even has a picture of frames: A, B & M. All three frames there are mutually at rest until M accelerates away at the same angle of a 3,4,5 triangle wrt the x-axis.

As discussed in some detail in the foot note of that post, this acceleration is not exactly the same wrt to origin of frame A as it is wrt the origin of Frame B. Hence by your SR theory (I am kind to call it that rather than BS) two DIFFERENT physical effects are produced in frame M. One by the acceleration wrt to frame A and one by the slightly different acceleration wrt frame B.

NOT POSSIBLE IF THE EFFECT IS ON (OR IN) THE FRAME THAT ACCELERATED AWAY.

I.e. frame M cannot have two different contractions at the same time. My POV is that the reality of frame A and frame B about things in frame M is what is different. Not changes in frame M at all, certainly not two different changes at the same time!

My bed time now see you tomorrow.

In the mean time, please tell how atoms in a cesium clock remember that many years ago they were accelerated so that the radiation emitted and cycle counted for # cycles is a different second or "time dilated" second. I keep asking things like this but only get your universal reply to everything that disagrees with your POV, Namely you never have any rational argument reply – You just say: "That is BS."

 

[MacM]

Post 698 even has a picture of frames: A, B & M. All three frames there are mutually at rest until M accelerates away at the same angle of a 3,4,5 triangle wrt the x-axis.

As discussed in some detail in the foot note of that post, this acceleration is not exactly the same wrt to origin of frame A as it is wrt the origin of Frame B. Hence by your SR theory (I am kind to call it that rather than BS) two DIFFERENT physical effects are produced in frame M. One by the acceleration wrt to frame A and one by the slightly different acceleration wrt frame B.

NOT POSSIBLE IF THE EFFECT IS ON (OR IN) THE FRAME THAT ACCELERATED AWAY.

I.e. frame M cannot have two different contractions at the same time. My POV is that the reality of frame A and frame B about things in frame M is what is different. Not changes in frame M at all, certainly not two different changes at the same time!

My bed time now see you tomorrow.

In the mean time, please tell how atoms in a cesium clock remember that many years ago they were accelerated so that the radiation emitted and cycle counted for # cycles is a different second or "time dilated" second. I keep asking things like this but only get your universal reply to everything that disagrees with your POV, Namely you never have any rational argument reply – You just say: "That is BS."

Lets nip this BS in the bud:

Billy's Post 698: "Now you may want to say, despite these different acceleration away from A& B that A & B are really the same frame. OK to counter that, I will assume, as I did in post 612 scenario, that B was not actually exactly at rest wrt to A & M. – It was moving at 1cm/ 10 billion years rate (B has moved less than 2 cm in the entire history of the universe.) – Do you think that “speed” makes any difference if A & B were separated by 2 light years? and M is inertial when only 10 miles from (0,0)?

Same old tired bullshit. Make a complex looking scenario that in reality is simple. A,B & M are in a common rest frame and the direction of motion doesn't affect the TD experienced. I have shown that by flying observers in a co-moving direction or opposite directions from the common rest frame.

So to just trying to confuse the issue you now by flying diagonal and saying to offset that B wasn't really at rest.

This is crazy. I will not play your stupid games. Answer my points or quit because yours is shear nonsense. Any motion of any observer must be considered for it's respective motion and must be properly synchronized before its affect has any meaning. Minor enough motion can be ignored just as I had responded to your prior BS post with 1 cm/100 years motion.

Technically they are not in common rest but the difference is immeasureable and can be ignored if you synchronize the clocks before the test.

End of my post. I will not respond to any further BS posts by you.

Answer my points of stop posting.

I do want to make one note that your post draws attention to. Historically we have been told that relative motion causes TD and that SR uses a +L or -L to distinguish if the motion is receeding or approaching and that the sign change cause the clock to either dilate or accelerate it's tick rate.

In this case you have structured three clocks in a common rest frame and when one moves it is both receeding and approaching another clock both of which are still ticking in synch and for which you now would want to claim the traveling clock is both dilating and accelerting it's tick rate simultaneously to the same frame.

Thank you for helping me prove my point about SR. As I have repeatedly said TD is caused by "Actual Motion" to a rest frame and is not caused by "Relative Velocity" between clocks.

 

[Billy T]

... In this case you have structured three clocks in a common rest frame and when one moves it is both receeding and approaching another clock both of which are still ticking in synch and for which you now would want to claim the traveling clock is both dilating and accelerting it's tick rate simultaneously to the same frame. ...

No. even with the typed picture of post 698 you still do not understand the geometry. Frame M is moving more to the right than up, so it is RECEEDING from both A & B when it is inertial. In fact, as explained in the footnote of 698, there is only a tiny difference in the accelerations and then in the final coasting speed of separation from A & B. (Both are slightly greater for B. I.e. when moving, M is always farther away from B than A and initially when M was at rest wrt to A & B, its distance from each was the same.)

Whole point of the 698 scenario is that because the acceleration and resulting velocity wrt B is slightly greater, the contraction and time dilation wrt B is greater than wrt to A.

I said a 50% factor for A and 50.0001% for B as I was careful not to tell the speed of separation when inertial but perhaps B's factor is 50.001%. Exactly correct value is not important but fact that contraction and dilation is greater wrt to B than A is. You think that the clocks and meter sticks of M must have two different real, physically caused, contraction and dilation factors AT THE SAME TIME! That is silly.

In my POV there is NO change in frame M at all. Physic remains the same in frame M as it is in all other inertial frames. (If it did not there is a frames at absolute rest and identifiable as all other frame are moving wrt it, so have time dilation. I.e. the absolute rest frame is the one with the fastest clocks and the longest meter sticks.)

Your SR needs to postulate the energy level of cesium atoms actually become closer together so the radiation which is counted to define he second is lower in frequency to make the moving cesium clock run slower. I.e. you violate the principle that physics is the same in all inertial frames.

I will admit that much of your postulated change is NOT detectable in frame M as all clocks are ticking more slowly, and all lengths have contracted by the same factor; however, physics certainly includes quantum THEORY. This theory is not changed. This theory allows one to calculate the energy levels of the atoms (in practice only hydrogen I think. -that was true many years ago when computers were less capable. Perhaps with modern computers now one can calculate helium "exactly" too now.)*

SUMMARY: ACELERATIONS DO NOT CHANGE A THEORY. Thus, the 10 significant figure agreement between theory and experiment would be destroyed if the levels did actually change for the accelerated system, M.

Even the Earth is being constantly acceleration by the sun to 180 degree reverse it direction of travel every 6 months, but as the sun is too moving the Earth's speed may not actually be changing direction, only magnitude wrt the "fixed stars." If your theory were correct the hydrogen line frequencies would be changed in six months due the changed velocity produced by the constant acceleration. That is not the case, as these lines are exactly (to ~10 significant figures) in agreement now and 6 months from now. Thus, your theory make demonstrably false prediction. Physic is the same in all inertial frames - not "changed by an acceleration induced velocity change" as certainly a THEORY is not changed every 6 months to preserve the 10 significant figure agreement with your postulated changing energy level in cesium and other atomic clocks. (They are accurate to better than 1 second in 300 years.)

PS I have replied to several of your many scenarios with rational arguments, not just called them BS. When you tell me either how the atom remembers that years ago it was accelerated to have entirely new energy levels,
OR
How the 10 significant figure agreement between THEORY and experiment can persist when the atomic levels in a cesium clock and all other atoms, including hydrogen, are changed by the velocity a prior acceleration made,

Then I will comment on any two of your clearly stated points / questions. (I may need to ask for some specific clarifications first if they relate to some specific scenario.) Note neither of my to requests for rational comments on just above question is "scenario specific." - Please try to make your TWO request to me the same to avoid delays of me asking for scenario clarifications.)

How can you turn down a 2 replies for 1 offer? (But of course just calling my points BS again will not be considered a rationally argued reply.)
---------------------------------
*By "exactly" I mean that the uncertainty in the calculated results is after the tenth significant figure. Amazingly the calculated results agree with the experimental results to about 10 significant figures -but they would not in the moving frame if there were any real change in the energy levels of hydrogen, as you postulate.

 

[phyti]

billy t post 702

Interesting. What is light mediating? Was there some dispute? I think not, so what do you mean by "mediating"?

-mediator is someone or something that acts to accomplish a change between
two entities ( persons, things, organizations, etc.)
eg. photons are absorbed or emitted during electron transitions between energy levels. Some form of radiation transfers energy within the universe.

I think neither as do not plan to accelerate all the way. I plan to just coast for 99% of the trip. I.e. quickly accelerate and then when quite close, decelerate. That way it is easy to apply SR as mainly the trip will be inertial and I do not sleep well while accelearting.

-that was to see if you were alert! The fuel would depend on the mass of the ship and the desired coasting speed.

None the less in the spirit of cooperation with a relative new comer to sciforums, I will say: Fuel for 5, not 8 year trip." As I also plain to use up many fewer of my heart beats than my stay at home twin brother who will be about 3 years older than me (measured by total heart beats used up) when I get back to Earth.

-Here is where the reality of td enters. If it is real then you will only need food for 4.8 yrs (no long term stay). As you mentioned, your rate of activity will only be .6 of that on earth.

post 698

-You have a minor discrepancy in the A,B,M scenario. You're confusing angular velocity with linear velocity. The distances are changing at varying rates relative to A and B, but the velocity of M is constant. A and B have the same velocity, thus are in a common frame.

 

[Billy T]

billy t post ... post 698
-You have a minor discrepancy in the A,B,M scenario. You're confusing angular velocity with linear velocity. The distances are changing at varying rates relative to A and B, but the velocity of M is constant. A and B have the same velocity, thus are in a common frame.

Not really. I did not mention the angular velocity or changes but knew the obvious: The linear trajectory line of M always passes thru the point (0,0) and never thru either A or B's locations. Only the speed component directly away for A & B enters into either MacM or standard SR* theory.

Initially the difference between the speeds wrt to B and wrt A is greatest but asymptotically becomes the same when M approaches infinity separation from both. All this is not important as the point is that both during the acceleration period and later when coasting M is leaving B faster than A so if there were an effect due either directly to the acceleration as QQ thinks or indirectly due to the "real" instead of "illusionary velocity" as MacM thinks, it is DIFFERENT. I.e. accelerating away from B makes more contraction** than accelerating away from A. Yet if as both MacM and QQ think this is real PHYSICAL change*** in M, they are in the embarrassing position of having two different contractions and time dilations at the same time. - Simple and clear nonsense.
----------------------
* That may be not strictly true of SR theory, as I recall. There is a higher order term with (V/C) ^4 in it, I think, but it is seldom mentioned as even if V is 10% of C that term makes only a factor of 1.0001 difference.

**And time dilation too.

*** Even the energy levels of the atoms, including those of hydrogen which quantum theory predicts correctly to about 10 significant figures!

 

[MacM]

No. even with the typed picture of post 698 you still do not understand the geometry. Frame M is moving more to the right than up, so it is RECEEDING from both A & B when it is inertial.

It appeared to me that M was moving from the X axis diagonally toward A which lies between A & B. That would have been both receeding and approaching tswo clcoks in the same frame.

However, it makes no difference since the dilation is to the common frame and NOT between clocks A & B.

You are the one that doesn't get it. Emperical data only supports the dialtion being to the rest frame and not to different clocks in that frrame.

In fact I can use the case where A & B are at common rest and M is moving between them, one receeding and the other approaching. My point is still valid in either case.

Now knock off the repeated false scenarios and false negative innuendo.

In fact, as explained in the footnote of 698, there is only a tiny difference in the accelerations and then in the final coasting speed of separation from A & B. (Both are slightly greater for B. I.e. when moving, M is always farther away from B than A and initially when M was at rest wrt to A & B, its distance from each was the same.)

This is a completely ludricrus post. I have addressed it and will not do it again. Any difference in A & B's inertial veloicty and they are not in a common rest frame. M was only at rest with (I believe A) therefore the motion being considered dilates to A and would be different (however small) to B.

Until you stop your nonsense I will continue to dump 90% of these worthless posts.

 

[MacM]

Not really. I did not mention the angular velocity or changes but knew the obvious: The linear trajectory line of M always passes thru the point (0,0) and never thru either A or B's locations. Only the speed component directly away for A & B enters into either MacM or standard SR* theory.

Initially the difference between the speeds wrt to B and wrt A is greatest but asymptotically becomes the same when M approaches infinity separation from both. All this is not important as the point is that both during the acceleration period and later when coasting M is leaving B faster than A so if there were an effect due either directly to the acceleration as QQ thinks or indirectly due to the "real" instead of "illusionary velocity" as MacM thinks, it is DIFFERENT. I.e. accelerating away from B makes more contraction** than accelerating away from A. Yet if as both MacM and QQ think this is real PHYSICAL change*** in M, they are in the embarrassing position of having two different contractions and time dilations at the same time. - Simple and clear nonsense.
----------------------
* That may be not strictly true of SR theory, as I recall. There is a higher order term with (V/C) ^4 in it, I think, but it is seldom mentioned as even if V is 10% of C that term makes only a factor of 1.0001 difference.

**And time dilation too.

*** Even the energy levels of the atoms, including those of hydrogen which quantum theory predicts correctly to about 10 significant figures!

Since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and in particular with respect to what MacM advocates you should just shut up and listen or go back and read until you understand. You are talking nonsense and saying nothing that represents my actual views.

Here you are trying to tell everybody that MacM believes that in this case the contraction or time dilation between A & M is different that it is to B & M when I have repeatedly told you the relavistic change is between M and the common rest frame, not between clocks. I have demonstrated that several times so knock off what has to be deliberate mis-information or lies.

If you don't understand my view then say so but don't put your words in my mouth.

 

[Billy T]

Since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about and in particular with respect to what MacM advocates you should just shut up and listen or go back and read until you understand. You are talking nonsense and saying nothing that represents my actual views.

If I misrepresented your POV in post 711, please say where and even better:

Restate what I was trying to state correctly. I have no intention to put words in your mouth. Your have done this many times to me and thus I know from experience, it is distasteful.

...I have repeatedly told you the relavistic change is between M and the common rest frame, not between clocks....

I remind you of the long used notational convention I use: A and B are frames, but a & b are clocks, which typically will start out at rest together in "frame C" and end the scenario in frames A & B respectively. Thus as clearly stated and confirmed by this convention I was speaking of frames A & B (and of M, which becomes the Moving frame.) I do not even mentioned any clocks in post 698. Thus your comments /reply above is again completely unfounded - no better than your usual "That is BS." reply. I did mention some points in all three of the initial mutual rest frames, A,B,&M, when telling where their Cartesian coordinate system origins were.

Your problem with 698 is the same as you had with 612, there is more than one CRF. Infact there are three intitially in 698 until M begins to move.

 

[Billy T]

Frames are just mathematical coordinate systems, not real object with grid lines painted on paper extending in plane to infinity in all directions. One can transform the coordinate of a point in one frame into its coordinate of another frame. As my three frames are all in the same 2D plane and share a common X-axis the transform between frame is very simple until frame M begins to move. Here is that transform for a point P, given in the coordinate system of B as (Xb, Yb).
In frame M that same point is (Xb, (Yb -1)) AND in frame A it is (Xb, (Yb -2)). As you probably can do (or are not interested in) the other transforms between frames, I will not state them. These transforms between frames apply for the three frames shown below, but note in post 698, the frame M coordinates were used.

…Both frames A & B’s origins are on the y-axis of M. (I.e. their x-value is zero.) A & B are each one unit from M. Origin of A is at M(0, 1) and origin of B is at M(0, -1). I will even type draw a picture for you (The y-axis is vertical, as is usual in drawings.):

|
3
|
2
|
A
|
M ------1-------2------3------4-- (the x-axis) ---7------8-----9-- See how M is at (0,0); A is at (0,1) & B is at (0,-1)
|
B
|
-1
|
-2
|

Even you can understand a picture, I assume.

Now I hope you know there exists a right angle triangle with sides of 3 and 4 and hypotenuse of 5. I cannot type draw that for you, but will tell where the corners are: They are at (0,0) , (4,0) and at (4,3). That is the 4 side is along the x-axis, the 3 side is vertical, and the smallest angles’s point is at the origin M(0,0). Got it?

As should be obvious, When M is in its final inertial coasting state, it has two Common Rest Frames, A & B but the velocity component directly away from origin of B is greater than from origin of A. This make selection of which MacM will use to compute the contraction and the time dilation a problem for MacM (and of course that was my intention).

Also note that even though M is coasting, no acceleration, the velocity wrt to either A or B is not only different but constantly changing!* I guess MacM's "Real Physical Change" is changing also, but will let him comment on that and also how M instantly knows of the change, even when light years away. As I see it, the more you look at MacM's SR , the sillier it gets.

-----------
*This "constantly changing" is true wrt ALL points in either A or B, not just their origin points, if not on the line 3Xb = 4Yb where again the trailing subscribt "b" tells that the coordinates are given in M's original static coordinate system. I do not think MacM has even stopped to think about it, but his "velocity wrt the CRF" is not even a well defined defined quantity!

 

[MacM]

If I misrepresented your POV in post 711, please say where and even better:

For years I have consistantly stated that the affect is between the accelerated observer and his initial rest frame and not to any other clock or observer. Yet you continue to post one stupid scenario after another trying to argue SR's illusion of motion and making assinine differences such as the 1 cm/10 billion years difference in interial veloicties and then saying how silly it is to consider it. Well the silly part is your doing because I pointed out clearly that while technically the two observers (clocks) are not in a comon rest frame the error is immeasuremabel and prqgmatically it could be considered common IF you synchronized clocks at that point of the process.

I do not even mentioned any clocks in post 698. Thus your comments /reply above is again completely unfounded[/b] - no better than your usual "That is BS." reply. I did mention some points in all three of the initial mutual rest frames, A,B,&M, when telling where their Cartesian coordinate system origins were.

Clocks smocks. When you are talking about relavistic affects and atom, an observer , or whatever IS a clock. It is only by a clock that TD is measured or LC inferred.

Your problem with 698 is the same as you had with 612, there is more than one CRF. Infact there are three intitially in 698 until M begins to move.

Horseshit. all three are at common rest. If they do not have relative veloicty to each other they are in a common frame and frames occupy the entire universe. Get real.

 

[MacM]

As should be obvious, When M is in its final inertial coasting state, it has two Common Rest Frames, A & B but the velocity component directly away from origin of B is greater than from origin of A. This make selection of which MacM will use to compute the contraction and the time dilation a problem for MacM (and of course that was my intention).

Bullshit. A & B are in a common frame. M was in that frame and IT is the only common rest frame, not each ordinate in the frame. No wonder you are lost you don't even know what a frame is.

Also note that even though M is coasting, no acceleration, the velocity wrt to either A or B is not only different but constantly changing!* I guess MacM's "Real Physical Change" is changing also, but will let him comment on that and also how M instantly knows of the change, even when light years away. As I see it, the more you look at MacM's SR , the sillier it gets.

Enough already. M's motion is to the rest frame which is where both A & B are. Your effort to use SR's claim involving illusion of motion between clocks (observers) is outright fraud here since I have consistantly said I have no interest in the "Illusion of Motion" aspects of SR and I have noquams about claiming each see the other dilated etc. The only issue ever raised has been that supported by emperical data which shows the ONLY affect is upon the accelerated observer to his initial rest frame and not to any other object, observer, clock or atom.

So please stop with the distortions and lies.

I do not think

You should stop here in this statement.

MacM has even stopped to think about it, but his "velocity wrt the CRF" is not even a well defined defined quantity![/b]

What the hell are you babbeling about now? M accelerates from common rest by what ever amount you stipulate. End of description.

 

[phyti]

billy t post 711

Not really. I did not mention the angular velocity or changes but knew the obvious: The linear trajectory line of M always passes thru the point (0,0) and never thru either A or B's locations. Only the speed component directly away for A & B enters into either MacM or standard SR* theory.

I'll give you this one.
My objection was to the two different effects on M by A and B, knowing that the td of M is solely based on its speed along its path.
The popular expositions of SR are one dimensional, where the 'apparent' length contraction is constant. In 2 or 3 dimensions the 'apparent' length changes continuously, which is your scenario here. I've plotted it myself but for now can't refer you to a pic.

 

[Billy T]

billy t post 711 I'll give you this one.
My objection was to the two different effects on M by A and B, knowing that the td of M is solely based on its speed along its path. ...

I think we are in complete agreement here. That was my objection too. I.e. MacM wants to go back in history to fine a "Common Rest Frame" CRF, and used the velocities wrt to the CRF, not the current velocity along the trajectory path.

As I showed and repeated in post 715 with more discussion about the A, B, M frame graph, the very idea of a velocity wrt a CRF is ill defined. A frame is a 2D plane that extends to infinity in all directions - What could velocity wrt to a plane mean?

Answer: Only the velocity away from the plane makes any sense. MacM however uses the velocity IN THE PLANE. If during the acceleration period there was some curving of the trajectory, He is totally at lose as back extention by straight line of the current velocity likely only includes points in the plane where the clock or meter stick in now inertail frame never was at rest.

MacM DOES NOT USE THE CURRENT VELOCITY ALONG THE PATH. Rarely even tells wrt which point in the plane his "Velocity wrt the CRF" is to be taken.

Standard SR effectively co-locates the origin of a frame on one of the two clocks (or meter sticks) and then used the velocity component of the other clock (or meter stick) which is currently directly away from that origin. I.e. the current RELATIVE separation speed not anything to do with ancient history or a CRF. If the current velocity is not wrt some point on the straight line back extention of the current velocity then it is not even constant as was discussed in the footnote of post 715, even though the moving clock or meter stick now has no acceleration (is in an inertail frame). That is why MacM is lost if there was some curving during the acceleration period.

 

[MacM]

but in the post just made the moving frame had two intial rest frames, A & B and different acceleration away from each of them. So by your SR, M has two different physical contractions in M at the same time say 50% and 5.0001% HOW CAN THAT BE? or is that just "too silly for words" so you can give no reply.
Nor to post 612 examole of the same thing, with two cases contrasted by a very slow motion on a table top of one clock, b, in case 2 only which lasting 100 years but moved b only 1 meter. (Could have been only1mm and that would still force MacM's SR to use velocities wrt a different CRF for analysis of case 2 and increase the Velocity case 2 uses in the calculation of time tidaltion by 0.6C )!

This is ridiculus. There is and can only be ONE rest frame. You are so fucked up it is hard to imagine you have any education. Or are you just deliberately making up this stupid bullshit and trying to lay it on me. You are NOT discussing my views for sure.