Documentation illustrating MacM’s “duck and weave” distortions of other's posts (my NEW comments in blue):
----------------- (On cause of “time dilation”):
In post 753, James R: “Viewing things from a different frame of reference "causes" time dilation, if you want to say things that way.” AND “Relativistic effects arise from viewing things in different frames of reference.”
In post 755, MacM’s Reply to above: “Don't buy this crap folks. Real physical change does NOT occur because you are watching. While you are watching you may see things differently than they are but they are what they are in spite of your delusions.”
In post 758, James R’s reply to above: “Correct. It occurs when you change the reference frame you're watching from.”
In earlier post 743 Billy T:
“The seconds of the moving frame are longer ONLY because the fixed frames seconds (and meter sticks when speaking of contraction in the moving frame) are used to DESCRIBE the event, such as clock ticks, in the moving frame.
I gave MacM, several times, the following analogy to help him understand that using your standards TO DESCRIBE something of another realm or frame can lead to an SR like effect:
Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!"
Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use TO DESCRIBE time or length in another realm or frame.
Because I know MacM will cease on the use of “see”, “watch”, “view” or similar words to imply an SR supporter like James R is crazy as he thinks that someone’s watching is the cause of Time Dilation, etc. I avoid these terms and use “describe” instead. With “describe” it is un-distortablely clear that cause of SR effects is due to using the seconds and meter sticks of the stationary frame to describe events in the moving frame without need to postulate, as MacM does, the creditably foolish “physical effects” of even atoms permanently changing their energy levels! For more on MacM’s needed energy level changes, see 2nd paragraph in the “***NOTE” text in blue comments below and the final section on the consistency of physics.
----------------- (On “reciprocity”):
In post 725, MacM: “Relative velocity as a cause breaks down the moment you realize that reciprocity does not happen and cannot happen as a physical reality.”
In post 730, Billy T: “Standard SR and I both assert that there is exact and identical reciprocity. I have illustrated that many times with cosmic muons:
1 - YOU CALL THIS SELFSERVING CRAP
Documentation??
2 - Please post for us your emperical data showing that from the muon frame the lab clock actually lost time once the relative velocity ended.
Go ahead we are waiting.
The earth's atmosphere, as described by all the experiment done in the muon frame, has contracted to be only about 10 meters thick. Thus, almost all of the muons, traveling at near speed of light, get thru that 10m to the surface despite their very short half lives. The half life is a clock. (We use it with C14 to tell how old fossil bones are, etc.) For us Earthlings, the atmosphere is about 100,000 meters thick. (It is in our frame and not contracted in our reality.) However, the fast moving muon clocks are living much too long if described by our seconds. Thus, SR effects DO HAVE RECIPROCITY as this natural experiment shows.
Where? Show us this reciproicity./ You apparently don't know wht reciprocity is. Reciprocity is when relative velocity ends the lab clock will display less accumulated time that the muon. vs actual emperical data which ONLT shows that the muon was time dilated.
Further you have absolutely NO basis to suggest distance changed rather than the life of the muon was affected by internal energy based on some universal scale.
I believe it was Quantum wave that suggeted it could be energy density since the atom would be physically contracted. Go ahead post some proof that this is not a viable alternative.
You can deny it all you like, but will not change EXPERIMENTAL FACTS - I.e. Earth based observations that most of the high altitude flux (measure by balloon experiments) do reach the surface even thought even light takes many of Earth measured muon half-lives to do so.”
Correct and I would not want to alter the facts because the facts are thatthere is NO evidence that reciprocity exists further there IS evidence that the muon life is extended as a functon of it's absolute motion to the CMB and not to earth's atmosphere.
Why do you continue to try and spak about "Illusions of Motion" affects during relative velocity? I have never challenged that issue. So NONE of your posts actually address the issue and NONE actually falsify any of my altervative suggestions.
MacM, of course, ignores this and other empirical evidence that “reciprocity” is real (or claims the evidence is false or ill relevant, not properly understood etc. if not ignored) For the latest of many examples:
Another bold face lie just as you keep distorting and lying. I guess you have no other basis to offer as a defense otherwise we would have seen it by now.
Posted by MacM in 764: “The "Illusion of Motion" is the SR assertion that your lab clock is dilated from the muon's frame of reference. Actual time dilation belongs ONLY to the moving muon frame.”
***NOTE: "Illusion of Motion" is a “MacM invented” term ONLY used MacM. There is no experimental means for distinguishing it from “real motion.”[/quote]
False. Another lie. When computing time dilation for real, i.e. - the Twin Paradox, SR considers who acceleratedand hence has Actual Velocity vs mere relative velocity it produces to the resting observer. Otherwise you have no solution to the paradox as reciprocity would mandate each twin were younger than the other.
You cnnot get by with this bait and switch. You cannot have it both ways.
MacM bases the distinction on prior history, which ever moving atom must somehow “remember” to shift it energy levels etc. from those than can be calculated from Quantum THEORY – I.e. even theory must remember and change by some ancient, long over, prior acceleration.
False again and another deliberate lie since I have addressed this many times when you have posted it. Ptrior history will have altered the total numbser of accumulated atomic vibratons but has noting to do with the current vibration rate. It is ONLY the current velocity that dictates vibrations hencev tick rate.
When you accelerate you alter that unknown velocity and itvresults in a change in atomic vibrations. A burning fuse or other chemical or nuclear process doesn't care about distance traveled and if the atomic internal clock did not match the emperical data showing less accumulated time (a dilated tick rate) then the 3 minute fuse would not burn in three minutes in the moving frame. Chemical and nuclear processes must therefore vary so that physics remain the same in every frame.
For example, it is the energy level spacing in cesium atoms that determines the rate a cesium atomic clock “ticks.” MacM accepts time dilation and insist it is caused by a real “physical change” in the moving frame, not “merely” a consequence of describing moving frame events, such as clock ticking, in terms of the not moving frame’s seconds etc. Thus MacM is asserting that every cesium atom used in the moving cesium clock remembers the ancient acceleration and has energy levels different from the values published in Physics Hand books.
False and another deliberate lie. MacM :
1 - Does not care nor has commented about "illusion of Motion " affects of a moving frame. MacM is only interested in the physical differential of accumulated time by two clocks once there is no longer relative motion but one has had relative veloicty to a rest frame (not just to another clock).
2 - Claiming atom must have memory is a gross distortion. If you had a vibration counter on an atom then you could claim it has memory and the accumulated count would give a collective affect of all historical changes but without such counters or attached clocks the current tick rate is strictly a function of current unknown absolute velocity (or energy), which can be predicted for changes in that inertial velocity based on acceleration nd duration of motion to the rest frame.
(Physics is definitely not the same in all inertial frames for MacM. Thus, there is a preferred or “absolute rest frame” – i.e. the one with the original, not reduced, energy levels and all other frames have Time Dilation wrt this frame. This logically follows from MacM's SR, but when "necessary," MacM ignores logic and math, etc. as MacM does not advocate ONE absolute rest frame; he has the CRF instead.)
Another falsehood, deliberate lie or gross ignorance. You either either do not understand my view or you deliberately attempt to distort it to others in a vain effort to mitigate my very valid points based on emperical data.
I have repeatedly demanded you and James R to post ONE case of emperical data supporting your view. Why is it you have not done so?
----------------- (On physicists using “frame switching” term)
In post 753, James R: “I've never heard any physicist call this "frame switching" - only you {MacM}.”
The next three posts are the earlier Billy T / MacM "Frame Switching"”exchange:
Posted by MacM in 721: “Modern physics however employ what they call "Frame Switching" when putting Special Relativity's mathematics to actual practice and predicting real time dilation.”
Posted by Billy T in 724: “If they do it is rare. I have never heard that term {clearly referring to “Frame Switching” not “Reciprocity”} used and have Ph.D and 45 years of profession experience in physics. Even if it is used so what? I also say that the “sun rises.” The exact terms used are not important – concepts and equations are.”
Posted by MacM in 725: “The fact that you claim to have never heard of the term "Reciprocity" raises real question about your claims of education and 45 years of professinal experience since it is a universally known and used term when discussing relativity. ”
Posted by Billy T in 730:
“Your post 725 text is distortion (or lies?). Not what I claimed. I said I had not heard of "Frame Switching" except from you. I have heard of, and frequently use, "Reciprocity" as it is a valid part of standard SR.”
This somehow has ANY signifigance to the issue? I see none.
----------------(On consistency in physics and in discussion of its models / theories):
In post 638, condensed, Billy T: “everyone who accepts that physics is the same in all inertial frames says all atoms have the same energy levels and thus the same difference and the same radiation wave lengths emitted. In the case of hydrogen these levels can and have been calculated - with amazing (to ~10 significant figures, I think,) agreement to experiment via quantum mechanics. For your POV to be correct even that theory must change as the frame changes to keep this fantastic agreement between theory and experiment! …”
Not sure what you are claiming has been mesured, when and how. Please post specific test information and I'll then be able to rebutt your assertion.
“I am thru trying to convince you. You ignore math proof of inconsistency (post 198) by staying it is too long and complex. You falsify the scenario of post 612 and try to replace it with one which leaves the critical slow one meter move on a table top out …. I.e. you throw the baby out with the bath water to avoid the embarrassment that a 1 meter move on a table top so slow it took 100 years drastically changes (by your version of SR and its CRFs) the resulting time dilation between two clock coasting in different frames for all eternity!”
No I've dealt with you far to many time over the yers and know you never respond directly to my points but attempt to confuse with overly complex new scenarios which do not support your own views emperically nor refute my views physically. All you ever do is recite SR and distort my views and attempt to refute your own versions of my views.
I no longer play your silly games. Either directly address my points of continue to have your scenarios get ignored.
CRF is another “MacM invented term, not used by any physicists. It is the “Common Rest Frame” from which in MacM’s version of SR all “real velocities” must be measure wrt. Post612 had a not humanly noticeable movement of clock “b” on a table top fixed in frame P in case 2, but none in case 1. Thus in case 2, P was not the CRF, which became the earlier frame C. As P was moving at 0.6C wrt frame C, this undetectable movement in case 2, forced MacM’s SR to used the much higher velocities in case 2 when calculating the final time dilation of b wrt clock a. I.e. TDba1 <<< TDba2 resulted from a not humanly detectible movement of clock b on a table top . Likewise earlier post 112, made before MacM had limited the use of CRF to the last CRF, had frames C & P with large relative motion and proved mathematically that MacM’s SR was not even self consistent when there was more than one prior CRF.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE FOR THE 4TH TIME. I clearly pointed out that technically since you stipulated that the two clocks never came to a full common rest stop but one continued to creep then the earlier common rest frame was the correct one to use BUT that such a minor movement would have IMMEASUREABLE affect on the results.
YOU are the one saying it makes a mojor difference and there is NO such major difference. More deliberate lies and distortions.
“And try other ways you try to “duck and weave” or just resort to name calling. You have done this for 5 years. It is not worth trying to change your POV – it is too rigid and wrong or at least in conflict with more than 1,000,000 much better educated people who have considered SR theory during the nearly 100 years it has been a standard part of most college level physics courses.”
One thing we can be sure of here is that you are NOT one of the 100,000.
“I just believe {1} that Physic is the same in all frames, in part because astronomy looking at radiated spectral lines from distant stars tells us so. I.e. the hydrogen red or blue shift observed can be compared to the computed values to get the relative velocity wrt to Earth of the distant star and then ALL the other lines are shifted by this same Doppler shift formula as they had unchanged / standard / same energy levels when radiated. Not one star is “remembering” that many million years ago it had acceleration by near miss with another star and thus a earlier “common rest frame” Etc.”
More deliberate lies and distortion. I have never suggested an atom must remember it's history. It's history only affects the ACCUMULATED number of vibratons, NOT it's current energy state.
All observed 1H1 atoms in the universe having a common frequence tht dopler shifted measures velicty to earth is perfectly OK butr proves absolutely noting you claim it does.
“I also believe {2} vacuum is vacuum, everywhere and that Maxwell's equations tell the speed of light (inverse root of product of vacuum magnetic permeability and dielectric constant, if memory serves me.) So speed of light in vacuum is the same everywhere. – Really, IMHO, this is just “Physics is the same in all frames” again.”
Yes and if the three minute fuse doesn't match the dilated clock. i.e. 0.6c = Gamma = 1.25 or take 3.75 minutes according to the resting observer then it is no longer a three minute fuse in the moving frame.
The fuse cares less about distance travel. BUT OH does it care about length contraction. You bet. LC only affects the fuse aligned in the direction of motion and not the orthogonal fuse such that in one frame they detonate at different times but in the moving frame the fuses are still equal and detonate simultaneously.
Before you try and pull a James R BS comment about simultaneity it doesn't apply since both TNT sticks are physically at the same location in all frames.
But now time dilation of a clock woudl affect both fuses equally. Hmmmmmmm = Wonder what tht might mean?:bugeye:
“All of SR follows from these two {1 & 2} facts.” Which are you disputing? Or do you think math is not a reliable means to derive results? }
I dispute the invariance of lightv as a physical reality and suggest it is in fact an illusion of as yet unknown physics.
That is just as in Cerenkov Radiation charged particles traveling FTL (Faster than Light) for a material such as water, produces photons moving at v = c for that material; that space vacuum is in fact an unknown material but with a measureable permeability permanance and dielectric constant where in SOMETHING moving FTL in that material would generate photons.
Now just as Fizeau showed the affect of a moving liquid on the velocity of light, motion of an observer in the vaccum of space would also affect the production or generation of photons.
It is rather a simple idea that observers moving with different velocities to a light source are seeing different photons generated at v = c for the vacuum of space material, rather than as you would try to have us believe that somehow
"A" photon has magical powers to exist invariantly at v = c to any and all observers simultaneously regardless of their differential velocities to the source.
If you want to debate me you need to do much, much better at staying on point and osting things that actually address the issue, not merely recite theory and appeal to authority.
So address these VERY simple facts:
1 - You claim all clocks tick the same and apparent TD is caused by LC. Resolve the TNT scenario where one fuse is foreshortened and the other is not in one frame but in the other frame both fuses remain equal.
2 - You claim there is no physical changes in a moving frame. Then explain the fact that
once relative velocity has ceased to exists an accelerated clock has less accumulated time than a resting cock.
3 - Assuming you were correct justify your assertoin that intelligent , educated people would conclude that distance has changed because a moving observer accumulates less time.
Remember the moving observer cannot sense or measure any change in his clock or meter stick.
Therefor the ONLY data he has to work with is the FACT that he traveled a known distance (which he verifies with his meter stick and o-dometer), in less time than you recorded. i.e. he records that he went 60 miles in 48 minutes and you record he went 60 miles in one hours.
With those fact and only those fats available (which is REAL physics, notSR fantasyland physics) an intelligent, educated person will compute he traveled 80 Mph while you compute he traveled 60 Mph.
That is real world physics, not that he would conclude he traveled less distance. That is simply an absurd and unsupportable assumption to fit the preconcieved idea advocated by merging time-space, while ignoring emperical data as meaning real physical chagnes have occured that cannot be a matter of observer perception since it exists without any relative veloicty being present.
Now answer just these three questions with no bullshi_.. Failure to do that puts you in the same catagory as James R for not pointing out any real mathematical flaws in the paper I linked by Dr Engelhardt. You and he are nothing but indoctrinated blow hearts with no real substative rebuttal. You like to try and mitigate my posts with personal attacks and negative innuendo.
Now try actually responding to the issues. I'll knock your socks off anything you think you can say that applies. You can't.
