NOTICE: MEMBERS AND VISITORS
Billy T has spent many days and pages here making statements about what MacM "Thinks", Believes", "Says", etc. NONE of which are actually based on anything I have said, think or believe.
His posts are full of shear nonsense so I will state here what is and has always been my views.
1 - Special Relativity advocates that an observer moving inertially can rightfully declare himself as being at rest and hence that two observers moving inertially with a relative velocity to each other means either can assume to be at rest and it is the other that has all motion.
Further Special Relativity provides a mathematical tool called Gamma that proclaims to predict time dilation and/or Lorentz Contraction based on relative velocity. This fact leads to what is known to be a symmetrical situation and causes reciprocity of affect.
That is where "A" sees "B" as time dilated at the same time as "B" sees "A" time dilated.
There are some here that want to claim that this situation is real and is a physical reality.
MACM's Actual View: This aspect of Special Relativity exists but is only an abberation, perception, or illusion of motion since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates. There is no permanent physical changes associated with the mere relative velocity between observers (clocks) affect.
To suggest this is in any way a physical reality it utter nonsense since it requires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. Nothing wrong with that being a perception or illusion caused by motion or distance between observers.
Just as watching a carpenter from a distance and seeing the hammer rise as you hear it hit the nail. It is the illusion not the reality at the hammer and nail's physical location.
2 - Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.
MACM's Actual View:"Frame Switching" is another term to describe who has "Actual Velocity" vs "Mere Relative Velocity". You can only switch frames if you change inertial velocity and you can only do that if you accelerate/decelerate.
To accelerate or decelerate means a change in inertial velocity which is an absolute affect. That is while you accelerate and have actual velocity via basic physical affects of F = ma, a = F/m, v = at, Work = F * d, Power = Wk/t, etc. Such that at some universal level you have changed energy state.
Not only have you changed energy state but you are no longer considering "Relative Velocity" between observers or clocks. You are considering your velocity to a former inertial rest reference, a calculation based on an absolute value and not merely a relative value.
If and ONLY if another clock was at common rest with you and has remained at rest will Special Relativity's mathematics generate a correct time dilation prediction between you and this other clock. That is only possible because the clock is at your initial inertial rest reference frame.
If the other clock has also moved then you must compute your dilation to the common rest frame, compute the other clocks time dilation to the comon rest frame and then take the difference between dilations as the dilation between you.
This is the only thing that emperical data has ever supported in over 100 years of relativity.
3 - Special Relativity stipulates that a moving frame is time dilated but when computing in the moving frame ignores the stipulated dilated condition so as to argue that the moving observer must have gone less distance since relative velocity is symmetrical and he accumulated less time for the trip.
Relativists argue both time dilation and lorentz contraction are real physical affects but are observer frame dependant.
MACM's Actual View:"You can select either Lorentz Contraction or clock time dilation as the physical cause for a moving observer accumulating less time for a trip than a resting observer measures.
However, it is ludricrus to suggest that anything physical is subject to an observer view point. An observer may mistake a physical condition by encumbered observation but he cannot cause a physical event by observation.
Retaining common sense physics and that either time dilation or length contraction must physically account for the observed affect, and it is emperically confirmed, I choose time dilation over length contraction for logical reasons.
That does not mean I'm correct it could be either but that doesn't alter the situation in the final analysis.
If an accelerated clock is subjected to an energy change that affects it's tick rate then that dilated condition to the resting clock is physical and real in all frames. That is if I have accelerated and my clock now ticks only 8 times to your resting clock's 10 times then I MUST use the 0.8 dilated tick rate when computing in my moving frame.
That is what is NOT done in Special Relativity. When computing in Special Relativity they ignore the dilated condition of the clock timing the trip and then argue since it accumulated less time and relative velocity is symmetrical it must have traveled less distance.
By doing that they have switched time standards when they switched frames.
If you retain the dilated condition stipulated based on the accelerated motion
then the accumulated time on the moving clock for the trip is ONLY correct if distance remained fixed and there was no spatial contraction.
This means the Einstein concept of merged time-space is flawed and time and space are in fact seperate enities or properties. Time dilation based on universal energy seems to be a logical process.
If you choose Lorentz Contraction as the physical cause then there are some rather bizzar consequences.
a - At sufficient relavistic velocity when you accelerate you get closer to whatever you are flying away from!
b - A particle being accelerated to 0.9999c in 10 usec has the universe dimensions in the +/- direction of motion to 0.01414 (Gamma = 70.7) contract.
Or 18 Billion light years becomes 254,552,077 light years as change of 1.77E10 light years/10usec = 1.77E15 light years per second!!!!
That computes to be a distance rate change of 55,818,700,000,000,000,000,000c!!
FINALLY The very fact that Special Relativity suggests that relative velocity IS symmetrical is in fact an absolute view. That is they apply relative velocity in a universal sense and not the local physics sense.
A moving observer who's clock has become time dilated or his meter stick foreshortened, has no method of sensing or measuring any change in his frame. This "Absence of Evidence" however is NOT the same as "Evidence of Absence".
The fact of time dilation be it caused by Lorentz Contraction or clock tick dilation means the moving observer accumulates less time for a trip and hence MUST compute that he was traveling faster than a resting clock will measure him as have been traveling.
The reality is at relavistic speeds two observers with relative velocity will not agree on the velocity they compute.
For example the distance between point "Y" and "Z" at rest is 60 miles. You travel between those points and your stop watch accumulates 45 minutes you will compute v = ds / dt = 60 miles / 0.75 hours = 80 Mph.
But a resting observer timing your trip accumulates an hour and will compute you were traveling v = ds/dt = 60 miles / 1 hour = 60 Mph.
This situation is the equivelent of traveling 60 lmin at 0.6614c where Gamma = 1.33 according to Special Relativity.
3 - Frames: A frame is an inertial condition of motion. Billy T has recently attempted to assert that I believe multiple clocks at common rest create multiple common rest frames.
MACM's Actual View:"That is ludricrus. There is and can only be ONE common rest frame.
i.e. - Three clocks spaced 1 lyr apart in any orientation (straight line, triangle, etc) that are at common rest (have no relative velocity to each other) are in a common rest frame.
When ONE clock accelerates and moves in any direction the relavistic affects are linked to the rest frame and not the other clocks in that frame.
That is the moving clock will now have differing relative motion to each clock but only one motion to the frame itself. It is motion to the frame and not other clocks that is physical reality as to relavistic affect.
Motion to the other clocks is the illusion of motion affects and are not physically real or have permanent impact on any clock.
SUMMARY While there are other issues and things in my view that may need clarification if Billy T continues to distort, lie, etc., I think this covers most of what he has recently been guilty of trying to slander me by making it appear I believe completely irrational things.
Saying I din't mention any clocks is a dodge by Billy T. Every atom, every observer is a clock in terms of tis discusion.
Billy T has spent many days and pages here making statements about what MacM "Thinks", Believes", "Says", etc. NONE of which are actually based on anything I have said, think or believe.
His posts are full of shear nonsense so I will state here what is and has always been my views.
1 - Special Relativity advocates that an observer moving inertially can rightfully declare himself as being at rest and hence that two observers moving inertially with a relative velocity to each other means either can assume to be at rest and it is the other that has all motion.
Further Special Relativity provides a mathematical tool called Gamma that proclaims to predict time dilation and/or Lorentz Contraction based on relative velocity. This fact leads to what is known to be a symmetrical situation and causes reciprocity of affect.
That is where "A" sees "B" as time dilated at the same time as "B" sees "A" time dilated.
There are some here that want to claim that this situation is real and is a physical reality.
MACM's Actual View: This aspect of Special Relativity exists but is only an abberation, perception, or illusion of motion since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates. There is no permanent physical changes associated with the mere relative velocity between observers (clocks) affect.
To suggest this is in any way a physical reality it utter nonsense since it requires two clocks to both tick slower than each other at the same time. Nothing wrong with that being a perception or illusion caused by motion or distance between observers.
Just as watching a carpenter from a distance and seeing the hammer rise as you hear it hit the nail. It is the illusion not the reality at the hammer and nail's physical location.
2 - Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.
MACM's Actual View:"Frame Switching" is another term to describe who has "Actual Velocity" vs "Mere Relative Velocity". You can only switch frames if you change inertial velocity and you can only do that if you accelerate/decelerate.
To accelerate or decelerate means a change in inertial velocity which is an absolute affect. That is while you accelerate and have actual velocity via basic physical affects of F = ma, a = F/m, v = at, Work = F * d, Power = Wk/t, etc. Such that at some universal level you have changed energy state.
Not only have you changed energy state but you are no longer considering "Relative Velocity" between observers or clocks. You are considering your velocity to a former inertial rest reference, a calculation based on an absolute value and not merely a relative value.
If and ONLY if another clock was at common rest with you and has remained at rest will Special Relativity's mathematics generate a correct time dilation prediction between you and this other clock. That is only possible because the clock is at your initial inertial rest reference frame.
If the other clock has also moved then you must compute your dilation to the common rest frame, compute the other clocks time dilation to the comon rest frame and then take the difference between dilations as the dilation between you.
This is the only thing that emperical data has ever supported in over 100 years of relativity.
3 - Special Relativity stipulates that a moving frame is time dilated but when computing in the moving frame ignores the stipulated dilated condition so as to argue that the moving observer must have gone less distance since relative velocity is symmetrical and he accumulated less time for the trip.
Relativists argue both time dilation and lorentz contraction are real physical affects but are observer frame dependant.
MACM's Actual View:"You can select either Lorentz Contraction or clock time dilation as the physical cause for a moving observer accumulating less time for a trip than a resting observer measures.
However, it is ludricrus to suggest that anything physical is subject to an observer view point. An observer may mistake a physical condition by encumbered observation but he cannot cause a physical event by observation.
Retaining common sense physics and that either time dilation or length contraction must physically account for the observed affect, and it is emperically confirmed, I choose time dilation over length contraction for logical reasons.
That does not mean I'm correct it could be either but that doesn't alter the situation in the final analysis.
If an accelerated clock is subjected to an energy change that affects it's tick rate then that dilated condition to the resting clock is physical and real in all frames. That is if I have accelerated and my clock now ticks only 8 times to your resting clock's 10 times then I MUST use the 0.8 dilated tick rate when computing in my moving frame.
That is what is NOT done in Special Relativity. When computing in Special Relativity they ignore the dilated condition of the clock timing the trip and then argue since it accumulated less time and relative velocity is symmetrical it must have traveled less distance.
By doing that they have switched time standards when they switched frames.
If you retain the dilated condition stipulated based on the accelerated motion
then the accumulated time on the moving clock for the trip is ONLY correct if distance remained fixed and there was no spatial contraction.
This means the Einstein concept of merged time-space is flawed and time and space are in fact seperate enities or properties. Time dilation based on universal energy seems to be a logical process.
If you choose Lorentz Contraction as the physical cause then there are some rather bizzar consequences.
a - At sufficient relavistic velocity when you accelerate you get closer to whatever you are flying away from!
b - A particle being accelerated to 0.9999c in 10 usec has the universe dimensions in the +/- direction of motion to 0.01414 (Gamma = 70.7) contract.
Or 18 Billion light years becomes 254,552,077 light years as change of 1.77E10 light years/10usec = 1.77E15 light years per second!!!!
That computes to be a distance rate change of 55,818,700,000,000,000,000,000c!!
FINALLY The very fact that Special Relativity suggests that relative velocity IS symmetrical is in fact an absolute view. That is they apply relative velocity in a universal sense and not the local physics sense.
A moving observer who's clock has become time dilated or his meter stick foreshortened, has no method of sensing or measuring any change in his frame. This "Absence of Evidence" however is NOT the same as "Evidence of Absence".
The fact of time dilation be it caused by Lorentz Contraction or clock tick dilation means the moving observer accumulates less time for a trip and hence MUST compute that he was traveling faster than a resting clock will measure him as have been traveling.
The reality is at relavistic speeds two observers with relative velocity will not agree on the velocity they compute.
For example the distance between point "Y" and "Z" at rest is 60 miles. You travel between those points and your stop watch accumulates 45 minutes you will compute v = ds / dt = 60 miles / 0.75 hours = 80 Mph.
But a resting observer timing your trip accumulates an hour and will compute you were traveling v = ds/dt = 60 miles / 1 hour = 60 Mph.
This situation is the equivelent of traveling 60 lmin at 0.6614c where Gamma = 1.33 according to Special Relativity.
3 - Frames: A frame is an inertial condition of motion. Billy T has recently attempted to assert that I believe multiple clocks at common rest create multiple common rest frames.
MACM's Actual View:"That is ludricrus. There is and can only be ONE common rest frame.
i.e. - Three clocks spaced 1 lyr apart in any orientation (straight line, triangle, etc) that are at common rest (have no relative velocity to each other) are in a common rest frame.
When ONE clock accelerates and moves in any direction the relavistic affects are linked to the rest frame and not the other clocks in that frame.
That is the moving clock will now have differing relative motion to each clock but only one motion to the frame itself. It is motion to the frame and not other clocks that is physical reality as to relavistic affect.
Motion to the other clocks is the illusion of motion affects and are not physically real or have permanent impact on any clock.
SUMMARY While there are other issues and things in my view that may need clarification if Billy T continues to distort, lie, etc., I think this covers most of what he has recently been guilty of trying to slander me by making it appear I believe completely irrational things.
Saying I din't mention any clocks is a dodge by Billy T. Every atom, every observer is a clock in terms of tis discusion.
Last edited: