Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[prometheus]

Having a civil discussion with you would be fine but you already picked up on the point that I was intending to make. There is a difference between velocity and change in velocity as you point out in your response.

Now if you maintain that acceleration does not affect the relativistic mass of an object then maybe we still have a topic to discuss.

From the rest frame, the mass of the accelerating object increases relative to its mass at rest. If that is what you are saying then we agree, God forbid.

My instinct is telling me that acceleration shouldn't affect the mass of something either. If it did you'd have a slightly crazy effect whereby you could accelerate an electron in an electric field and find the mass was greater than $$m_e$$ which I don't think is the case.

 

[Billy T]

...Sorry assuming without proof to be true is hardly a standard I base my physics on. ...

I have long suspected that you did not have any clearly stated postulated foundation, like standard math and physics does.

I am curious. What is your physics based on? Revelation to you by God? Your intuition? Or ?

Logic and reason ALWAYS starts from some postulates that are assumed to be true. In math these are often called "axioms."

You do seem to operate non-logically with some unique basis, but what is it?

 

[quantum_wave]

Phyti and Prometheus, you guys are ruining my day . What you have taught me is that acceleration does not increase the mass of an object and the impression that I have is due to the pop/lecture type of introductory education, while at the more advanced level I would distinguish between the conversion to the Newtonian and the true science. I’ll accept that.

So why I say you have ruined my day is because I have been thinking that acceleration added kinetic energy to an object or particle, and the conservation of momentum requires a mass increase as described in the lecture note link that I was using. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html

I have been under the impression for example that accelerating particles like the LHC does increases the mass of those particles. Now what I am beginning to understand from you guys is that it is not an increase in relativistic mass, but the effect of time dilation? I probably have that wrong but if you can see what I am getting at by trying to apply what you have said to the LHC, if you can phrase it correctly I would appreciate it.

 

[Billy T]

To quantum wave(later by edit):
You posted 863 while I was making 862. I think your concerns about accelerators making mass is easily resolved by the analysis in my example (2) below. The first accelerator, the cyclotron, was a simple device and easy to understand. Read (2) and if you do not understand, ask me your questions.

My instinct is telling me that acceleration shouldn't affect the mass of something either. ...

Our instinct and intuition is often wrong when extended into realms where we have no experience. Then we must rely on math derived from basic postulates such as SR's two: Constancy of light speed and physic in all inertial frames.

Sometimes also non-intuitive facts can be discovered experimentally.
For examples:
(1) Each photon goes thru both slits to produce the interference pattern is demonstrated with very low intensity light and long time exposures of the film recording the interference pattern ("Low intensity" mean > 90% of the time there is no photon going from source to film and essentially never do two photons exist at the same time.)

(2)The cyclotron, (earliest accelerator to make particles approach the speed of light) has a constant radius trajectory for the charged particle with a magnetic field curving them as they gain energy from an moderately high frequency AC field. They soon are making 360 degree circuit in essentially the same time as cannot go noticeably faster when already have nearly speed of light.

It is an experimental fact that the magnetic field must be constantly increasing to supply the needed force keeping them in the same radius orbit. That magnetic force is F = evB = ma = m(v^2)/R where e is the unchanging charge of the particle, B the steadily increasing magnetic field, v = ~C, the speed of light, R is the constant radius of the circuit, and m the mass of the particle. Thus the required magnetic field is:

B = m {C/(eR)} but everything in the { } is a constant. I.e. the required B is directly proportional to the increase in the mass of the particle. An experimental fact noted many years ago, by Lawrence, the inventor of the cyclotron. It may be counter intuitive that just by gaining energy from the AC electric field the relativistic particle gains mass, but that is the fact.

 

[MacM]

Let's do this properly.

Take two points in a box, A and B, connected by a fuse. In the rest frame of the box, let us assume that the fuse has length d'. The fuse is oriented parallel to the direction of motion of the box and burns from A towards B. The box moves relative to the ground with a Lorentz factor of $$\gamma$$ and speed v in the SAME direction that the fuse burns.

In the box frame, the fuse burns a distance d' in time t'. It's burn speed in this frame is u'=d'/t'.

We now need to work out the burn speed of the fuse in the ground frame. To do that, we need to work out the distance it needs to cover and the time it takes to do so.

Let event A be the event at which the fuse is lit. Its spacetime coordinates in the box frame are (x',t') = (0,0). Let event B be the event at which the fuse reaches point B. Its spacetime coordinates are (x',t') = (d',t').

Now consider the ground frame. The spacetime coordinates of event A are taken to be (x,t) = (0,0). The spacetime coordinates of event B are calculated using the Lorentz transformations:

$$x = \gamma(d' + vt')$$
$$t = \gamma(t' + vd'/c^2)$$

The fuse burn speed in the ground frame is u = x/t, or

$$u = \frac{d' + vt'}{t' + vd'/c^2} = \frac{d'/t' + v}{1+(d'/t')(v/c^2)} =\frac{u' + v}{1 + u'v/c^2}$$

Let's plug in some numbers. Put u'=0.4c for the burn speed in the box frame and v=0.6c for the speed of the box relative to the ground. The 0.4c is unrealistically fast, but all that matters for this example is that u' is slower than the speed of the box.

[color=red[b]In this case, we get u=0.806c. That is, in the ground frame the fuse burns at a faster rate than it does in the box frame (u'=0.4c).[/b][/color] However, most of this speed is due to the motion of the box rather than the burning of the fuse itself.

HA. Now you want to use my view that what SR predicts is an illusion of motion and not reality. Make up you mind please.

It is tempting to subtract off the speed of the box from u to get a more direct comparison, which would give u = 0.806c - 0.6c = 0.206c, from which we might conclude that the fuse burns slower in the ground frame than it does in the box frame. However, this calculation is not a correct one because we're dealing with relativistic speeds here that do not just subtract like this. In fact, if we properly "subtract off" the speed of the box in the ground frame, we're back to where we started, with the fuse burning at 0.4c (as was originally assumed). That is, ignoring the motion of the box the fuse burns at the same rate in both frames. But of course it does. It's the same fuse in both frames.

What a piece of work. I have already said in the box frame the fuses burn at the same rate. Now try subtracting off the velocity addition component in the ground frame and they indeed physically detonate at the same time.

It is SR's screwed up fantasyland physics ( no I like that Harry Potter physics lable better) that causes identical TNT sitting side by side, lit simultaneously to detonate at different time a a mater of view point.

Like I have said most of SR is perception and not physical reality.

 

[MacM]

I have long suspected that you did not have any clearly stated postulated foundation, like standard math and physics does.

I am curious. What is your physics based on? Revelation to you by God? Your intuition? Or ?

Logic and reason ALWAYS starts from some postulates that are assumed to be true. In math these are often called "axioms."

You do seem to operate non-logically with some unique basis, but what is it?

Billy,

Your assumptions include your own biases.

My views are based on simple basic physics where reality is never a matter of observer perception.

Being at some distance where it appears the carpenter is raising his hammer at the time you hear it hit the nail is NOT the reality. It is an "Illusion of Distance".

LIkewise seeing identidcal TNT sitting side by side, lit simultaneously that detonates locally simultaneously but when viewed by an observer with relative velocity to the event has the TNT detonate at different times is NOT reality it is an "Illusion of Motion".

As is the case when you apply mere "Relative Velocity"
to the issue of time dilation. What each observer "sees" is NOT the reality but an "Illusion of Motion".

The reality based on ALL emperical data over 100 years is that ONLY the clock of the accelerated frame ACTUALLY dilates not the resting clock.

Based on these logical assumptions and the absence of any physical evidence or emperical data to support it one must conclude that time dilation is caused by an affect on clocks and not upon some contraction of distance.

Further that the traveling observer even according to SR would not and could not conclude on sceintific evidence that he had traveled less distance between knows points in a given period of time but would instead merely compute his veloicty based on such distance and time.

v = ds / dt. Is the physics of his frame. ds does not change in either frame as measured by either observer.

I suggest that in fact my view of SR's reciproicty being strictly perception and not reality is testable, unlike SR's unsupported claims.

If both observers transmits beeps to each other with each tick and you mathmetaically remove the doppler affect based on relative veloicty you will find that even during relative motion only the accelerated frame is ticking more slowly. The moving observer will find that the resting clock is ticking faster than his not dilated.

I do not find these views to be radical. I find your views radical and dismissive of common sense and evidence.

 

[quantum_wave]

To quantum wave(later by edit):
You posted 863 while I was making 862. I think your concerns about accelerators making mass is easily resolved by the analysis in my example (2) below. The first accelerator, the cyclotron, was a simple device and easy to understand. Read (2) and if you do not understand, ask me your questions.

Either you interpreted my willingness to learn from Phyti and Prometheus as confusion on my part or you are saying that I am confused. Acceleration increasing mass has been an understanding that I have long maintained until they mutually refuted that understanding. I was willing to learn and so I said I would accept their better understanding but asked them to clear up one thing for me to close the deal.

I brought up what I thought to be a common understanding about the LHC. It accelerates particles to relativistic speeds and as a result increases the mass of those particles. It sounded like you confirmed my understanding.

 

[MacM]

Phyti and Prometheus, you guys are ruining my day . What you have taught me is that acceleration does not increase the mass of an object and the impression that I have is due to the pop/lecture type of introductory education, while at the more advanced level I would distinguish between the conversion to the Newtonian and the true science. I’ll accept that.

So why I say you have ruined my day is because I have been thinking that acceleration added kinetic energy to an object or particle, and the conservation of momentum requires a mass increase as described in the lecture note link that I was using. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/mass_increase.html

I have been under the impression for example that accelerating particles like the LHC does increases the mass of those particles. Now what I am beginning to understand from you guys is that it is not an increase in relativistic mass, but the effect of time dilation? I probably have that wrong but if you can see what I am getting at by trying to apply what you have said to the LHC, if you can phrase it correctly I would appreciate it.

Mac's two cents.

I see the "Apparent" relavistic mass increase with velocity to actually be nothing more than a function of energy transfer efficiency. It is based on accelerating particles in a machine using v = c EM.

It is simular to the EM wave of a coil going into and being stored in space.

In electronics it is ELI or E(Voltage) Leads I (Current) but when you open a coil circuit the EM returns from space and you get a huge Voltage spike and a spark flash with a large current rush.

This spike appears much stronger than the input was. So as the particles approach the pushing speed of the EM less and less energy gets applied to the acceleration of the particle and more and more gets locked up in space chasing the particle making it appear harder to push or more massive.

When you attempt to stop the particle the energy following in space catches up and gives it additonal push making it harder to stop and appear to have been more massive.

But the reality is mass did not change only energy transfer efficiency did.

If true then there is a major difference in physics and that is there is no theoretical limit to continued acceleration if the fuel energy, thrust source, and mass load are all traveling together and do not have v = c between push source and mass load.

There would however be considerable pragmatic limits. i.e. - 1 particle/ m^3 in space becomes 3E8 high energy particles/m^2 surface at v = c.

 

[quantum_wave]

Mac's two cents.

I see the "Apparent" relavistic mass increase with velocity to actually be nothing more than a function of energy transfer efficiency. It is based on accelerating particles in a machine using v = c EM.

It is simular to the EM wave of a coil going into and being stored in space.

In electronics it is ELI or E(Voltage) Leads I (Current) but when you open a coil circuit the EM returns from space and you get a huge Voltage spike and a spark flash with a large current rush.

This spike appears much stronger than the input was. So as the particles approach the pushing speed of the EM less and less energy gets applied to the acceleration of the particle and more and more gets locked up in space chasing the particle making it appear harder to push or more massive.

When you attempt to stop the particle the energy following in space catches up and gives it additonal push making it harder to stop and appear to have been more massive.

But the reality is mass did not change only energy transfer efficiency did.

If true then there is a major difference in physics and that is there is no theoretical limit to continued acceleration if the fuel energy, thrust source, and mass load are all traveling together and do not have v = c between push source and mass load.

There would however be considerable pragmatic limits. i.e. - 1 particle/ m^3 in space becomes 3E8 high energy particles/m^2 surface at v = c.

But the problem is that any incremental increase in acceleration takes more and more energy. If efficiency in the rate of energy transfer can fall of as the object gains momentum, then you are saying that it takes less and less energy to continue to accelerate the object instead of more and more.

 

[Billy T]

Billy, Your assumptions include your own biases.

That is true. Everyone makes their basic assumptions and then tries to test them. Mine are widely accepted things, that have been tested, like the speed of light, C, is a constant. For example, C is same at equator when moving due to earth's rotation at ~1000mph as at higher latitudes where surface tangential speed is less. Also not different 12 hours later when that 1000mph is changed from adding to Earth's orbital speed about the sun or subtracting from the orbital speed etc. Same is true of the other SR basic assumption: physics is not varying every 12 hours or with latitude either.

My views are based on simple basic physics where reality is never a matter of observer perception.

In complete agreement with you here - In fact there does not even need to be any observer - for example a photographic film or digital detector is now the standard recorded of what once astronomer viewed via telescopes. You are again distorting my POV. I say the strange effects of SR have NOTHING to do with perception, viewing, thinking, looking, seeing, etc. - They are due to DESCRIBING events in another frame in terms of our frame's units.

I tried to make that simple and clear enough for even you to understand by the analogy of the short armed King of France being pleased to get 115 yards of rope from the Eanglish King who only charged for 100 yards as both kings back then defined the yard as distance from nose to tip of extended arm. I.e. it is the use of your uints in a DISCRIPTION of another's events that CAUSED THE ROPE TO "GROW" or the SR effects. No physical change in either frame, but you still either don't get it or intentionally distort my POV - So often now that one must conclude your are simply lying.

The reality based on ALL emperical data over 100 years is that ONLY the clock of the accelerated frame ACTUALLY dilates not the resting clock.

You also keep asserting this but I have many times pointed out to you that the cosmic ray muons have demonstrated SR effects in BOTH frames, their and Earth's I.e. in their frame there is no time dilation but the Earth's atmosphere (which in stationary in our frame) has contracted to be only about 10 meters thick so most easily cross it before They decay. We describe the fact that they get down to Earth's surface by fact that by our clocks they live much too long to do that. I.e. time is dilated in their frame when described by our seconds.

You, with no foundation at all postulate your way around these fact by ASSUMING that radioactive half lifes are a function of speed, totally ignoring the obvious flaw in that that there are a zillion different speeds they must at the same time adjust their life times for as there are a zillion different frames that the muon speed could be measured in.

...absence of any physical evidence or emperical data to support it one must conclude that time dilation is caused by an affect on clocks and not upon some contraction of distance.

I just again gave you evidence of reciprocity. Why reject it? Because you say atmosphere is not contracted if described in the muon’s frame units? Thanks, but "no thanks" - I will stick with the explanation which follows mathematically from the two confirmed (see first paragraph of reply) two basic postulates of SR, not your explanation with its totally unconfirmed "half lives are a function of speed" etc. reason why the muons reach the surface.

I grow tired of correcting you and see no more misquotes or distortions of my POV so will stop here.

 

[MacM]

But the problem is that any incremental increase in acceleration takes more and more energy. If efficiency in the rate of energy transfer can fall of as the object gains momentum, then you are saying that it takes less and less energy to continue to accelerate the object instead of more and more.

No I think you are missing the point. Suppose the empeerical data shows that for each10% increment in velocity change you had to put in 1.2247^1.2247 the amount of energy. Such that 1.2247^2 = 1.5 times as much energy every 10% veloicty increase.

Starting with velocity = 100 then to get to 110 would take 1.5 times the energy but in reality only 1.2247 got applied to the mass in the form of push.

You are now at x+1.5 energy. To get to 1.21 velocity takes another (x+1.5)*1.5 energy or = 1.5x + 2.25 energy, etc. It takes an increasing amount of energy to continue to accelerate but eveen more goes into space chasing the accelerated particle.

 

[quantum_wave]

No I think you are missing the point. Suppose the empeerical data shows that for each10% increment in velocity change you had to put in 1.2247^1.2247 the amount of energy. Such that 1.2247^2 = 1.5 times as much energy every 10% veloicty increase.

Starting with velocity = 100 then to get to 110 would take 1.5 times the energy but in reality only 1.2247 got applied to the mass in the form of push.

You are now at x+1.5 energy. To get to 1.21 velocity takes another (x+1.5)*1.5 energy or = 1.5x + 2.25 energy, etc. It takes an increasing amount of energy to continue to accelerate but eveen more goes into space chasing the accelerated particle.

Yes, I see what we are saying is not contradictory.

I also realize that there is or at least used to be a huge controversy over the reference to "relativistic" mass increase. Some use the term "apparent" mass to point out that they are talking about observer-dependence.

It looks like I can't get away with the simple statement that acceleration increases the relativistic mass of an object. Would anyone go so far as to say that there is now a consensus that it is improper to refer to relativistic mass increase due to acceleration?

That leaves the question I posed earlier about the LHC and my understanding that as the LHC accelerates protons their relativistic mass is increased. Is that wrong, i.e. is it now a "no no" to refer to the increase of the mass of accelerated protons in the LHC as an increase in relativistic mass.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

 

[MacM]

Yes, I see what we are saying is not contradictory.

I also realize that there is or at least used to be a huge controversy over the reference to "relativistic" mass increase. Some use the term "apparent" mass to point out that they are talking about observer-dependence.

It looks like I can't get away with the simple statement that acceleration increases the relativistic mass of an object. Would anyone go so far as to say that there is now a consensus that it is improper to refer to relativistic mass increase due to acceleration?

That leaves the question I posed earlier about the LHC and my understanding that as the LHC accelerates protons their relativistic mass is increased. Is that wrong, i.e. is it now a "no no" to refer to the increase of the mass of accelerated protons in the LHC as an increase in relativistic mass.

No your view is the modern view. That is velocity (not acceleration) increases mass. Of course you have to accelerate to increase velocity.

However, most today do not refer to relavistic mass but only rest mass or just mass. Even Einstein advised against it say they shuld restrict comments to relavistic momentum.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks MacM.

I added this link to my last post but you replied before I got it added.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

FYI

And here are some comments in a post about the book, "Gravitation" by MT&W that brings up energy density, mass density, energy flow and mass flow. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=671119&postcount=25

Just interesting.

 

[MacM]

Thanks MacM.

I added this link to my last post but you replied before I got it added.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

FYI

And here are some comments in a post about the book, "Gravitation" by MT&W that brings up energy density, mass density, energy flow and mass flow. http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=671119&postcount=25

Just interesting.

You are welcome and note the view in relativity:

From Baez paper:.....and the angle between its direction of motion and the applied force.

As you apply more and more energy you get acceleration and more velocity but as velocity goes up the applied force drops because the energy begins to flow laterally into space.

So even SR considers it an energy transfer efficiency issue.

Thanks for the post because aws with most of my views there are some here that like to phoo-phoo anything I say. In this case my own view seems to coincide with mainstream even if they don't know it.

Now before James R spouts off I didn't say laterally or orthogonal here, he is right, however if he cares to review UniKEF (his favorite alternative concept) the issue of relavistic mass is described as being energy transfer efficiency and diagrams are given showing the flow of applied energy going more and more into space laterally rather than pushing the particle.

 

[MacM]

That is true. Everyone makes their basic assumptions and then tries to test them. Mine are widely accepted things, that have been tested,

So since you believe in reciprocity as a physical reality please post the test data supporting that view. While at it please post test data supporting length contraction as a physical reality.

like the speed of light, C, is a constant. For example, C is same at equator when moving due to earth's rotation at ~1000mph as at higher latitudes where surface tangential speed is less. Also not different 12 hours later when that 1000mph is changed from adding to Earth's orbital speed about the sun or subtracting from the orbital speed etc. Same is true of the other SR basic assumption: physics is not varying every 12 hours or with latitude either.

Agreed with the perception at least that light seems invariant when measured from here on earth and likely any massive body. But I do not believe you have evidence or proof that the photons that seem invarinat to you are actually the same photons or are you seeing different photons with change in veloicty to the source?

In complete agreement with you here - In fact there does not even need to be any observer - for example a photographic film or digital detector is now the standard recorded of what once astronomer viewed via telescopes. You are again distorting my POV. I say the strange effects of SR have NOTHING to do with perception, viewing, thinking, looking, seeing, etc. - They are due to DESCRIBING events in another frame in terms of our frame's units.

So then you reject all gendankens that have been posted here that discuss what each observer sees? Good. We have made progress. Now framkly it matters not if it is yuour eyes or a camera the illusion can be recorded jsut as well as it can be recorded.

It is no different that hearing the police sieren go Wheeee - Oooooh as it passes by. Clearly you can record that affect but that is doppler shift of the true constance frequency of the siren.

It is no different than putting red colored filters on your glasses and camera.

Both would make it appear that the universe had turned red but ofcourse it has not. So your philosphy falls short of valid physics.

I tried to make that simple and clear enough for even you to understand by the analogy of the short armed King ..........(deleted garbage )........................ No physical change in either frame,

Good then you ageree SR is primarily perception and not physical reality?

but you still either don't get it or intentionally distort my POV - So often now that one must conclude your are simply lying.

You can clonclude whatever you want but concluidng I am a liar is beyond meriting a response asshole.

You also keep asserting this but I have many times pointed out to you that the cosmic ray muons have demonstrated SR effects in BOTH frames, their and Earth's I.e. in their frame there is no time dilation but the Earth's atmosphere (which in stationary in our frame) has contracted to be only about 10 meters thick so most easily cross it before They decay. We describe the fact that they get down to Earth's surface by fact that by our clocks they live much too long to do that. I.e. time is dilated in their frame when described by our seconds.

You really do not understand relativity do you. Your description does NOT describe the inherent reciprocity advocated by a mere relative veloicty view.

I have lost count of the number of time I have explained this to you. Reciprocity is based on the idea that relative veloicty is equal between observers and therefore so are all relavistic affex=cts. That is not only does the muon clock have to slow down but the lab clock must slow down from the muon's view. Meaning if has 3even less time to reach the earth by our clocks than it would normally have.

Not to add to the fact you just said above that NOTHING physical happens in either frame. :bugeye:

Not to mention that the reality is and emperical data supports the fact that something does physically happen in the moving frame in that it accumulates less time than the resting frame.

So you have not only flip-flopped here you have flopped out of the frying pan into the fire.

You, with no foundation at all postulate your way around these fact by ASSUMING that radioactive half lifes are a function of speed, totally ignoring the obvious flaw in that that there are a zillion different speeds they must at the same time adjust their life times for as there are a zillion different frames that the muon speed could be measured in.

Your statment is only true if you consider spped to be ONLY relative to other moving objects and not absolute at some level universally. You do not need to know what the absolute speed (velocity) is for it to exist. The only thing you can know is any change in that veloicty which is in fact an absolute value based on an inertial rest frame reference.

By the way let me remind you and other that your "Postulate" based concept depends on:

WEBSTER:

Postulate: 2) to assume without proof to be true, real or necessary.

NO PROOF being the key adjective here.

I just again gave you evidence of reciprocity. Why reject it? Because you say atmosphere is not contracted if described in the muon’s frame units? Thanks, but "no thanks" - I will stick with the explanation which follows mathematically from the two confirmed (see first paragraph of reply) two basic postulates of SR, not your explanation with its totally unconfirmed "half lives are a function of speed" etc. reason why the muons reach the surface.

The evidence yo gave only supports that the muon life is longer (it's clock is dilated) compared to the earth lab clock. Not reciprocity wherein the earth's lbe clock must be dilated compared to the muon.

Further more I don't know how you can even discuss muon life in terms of velocity since it is not inertial but decellerating all the way down. Thought you said SR doesn't apply in non-inertial frames?

I grow tired of correcting you and see no more misquotes or distortions of my POV so will stop here.

And I grow tired of you claiming to correct me when it is I that must continuously correct you. Your posted scenarios NEVER actually prove what you claim they prove, just as is the case in this post.

Just as you still ignore the fact that measurment of muon ansitrophy to earth has been used mathematically to demonstrate that the muon life is more connected to it's velocity to the CMB than to earth such that one must consider that perhaps the CMB may be a suitable absolute reference even though it is not static.

 

[James R]

MacM:

In this case, we get u=0.806c. That is, in the ground frame the fuse burns at a faster rate than it does in the box frame (u'=0.4c). However, most of this speed is due to the motion of the box rather than the burning of the fuse itself.

HA. Now you want to use my view that what SR predicts is an illusion of motion and not reality. Make up you mind please.

No. The fuse really does burn faster in the direction of motion due to the added motion of the box containing it.

To take a similar example. Suppose you have a bag on the passenger seat of your car as you drive along at 50 mph. How fast is the bag moving? Somebody standing beside the road says it is moving at 50 mph. You're saying that's an "illusion of motion". I'm saying that's the real speed of the bag as measured by the person on the roadside.

I have already said in the box frame the fuses burn at the same rate. Now try subtracting off the velocity addition component in the ground frame and they indeed physically detonate at the same time.

No. The relativity of simultaneity is a completely separate issue. They certain DO NOT detonate at the same time in the ground frame. The fact that you can't understand the issue is further evidence of your complete lack of knowledge of relativity.

 

[James R]

Being at some distance where it appears the carpenter is raising his hammer at the time you hear it hit the nail is NOT the reality. It is an "Illusion of Distance".

Once again I have to repeat something I tried to teach you long ago.

You are thinking of the time delay for a signal (whether light or sound) to travel from the carpenter to the observer. For example, when the hammer hits the nail, the sound from that takes some time to reach you, standing some distance away. The result is that you do not hear the hammer hitting the nail at the same time that you see the hammer hitting the nail (because light travels faster than sound).

Relativity is not about these kinds of signal delays. Relativity is concerned with the times that events actually happen. The spacetime event of the hammer hitting the nail is a different spacetime event from the person on the other side of the room hearing the sound from the hit, which is a different spacetime event from the person seeing the light from the hit. Thus, in this situation we have 3 different and separate events in spacetime.

The relativity of simultaneity proves that two spatially-separated events that are simultaneous in one reference frame cannot be simultaneous in a different reference frame. And that has NOTHING to do with any signal travel times between the two events.

The fact that MacM still does not understand the concept of a spacetime event and the relativity of simultaneity, even after repeated clear and careful explanations, shows once again that he is not capable of even understanding the theory he attempts to criticise.

 

[MacM]

MacM:No. The fuse really does burn faster in the direction of motion due to the added motion of the box containing it.

Pathetic. Absolutely no physics basis what-so-ever. The ONLY basis is the absurd mathematical contruction of SR.

To take a similar example. Suppose you have a bag on the passenger seat of your car as you drive along at 50 mph. How fast is the bag moving? Somebody standing beside the road says it is moving at 50 mph. You're saying that's an "illusion of motion". I'm saying that's the real speed of the bag as measured by the person on the roadside.

We are not talking about the forward motion we are talkling about the burn rate of the fuse. You may see the burning fuse moving forward at the box velocity but that is NOT burn rate of the fuse.

No wonder you can't keep things straight you don't know how to seperate reality from fantasyland physics. If I'm walking forward in a moving train and you see me from the embankment. How fast am I walking? - Not how fast am I moving. That later is what you are trying to claim and it is shear nonsense.

Now SR does assert that velocity addition applies to the "Perception" from the ground about the flame rate but that is the issue here doing that shows that ASR causes a change in physics in the box frame as a matter of perception of different observers.

But my point is and has been that is perception not the physical reality. It is no more physical r4eality than putting on those red colored glasses and thinking the universe turned red. When of course it did not.

No. The relativity of simultaneity is a completely separate issue. They certain DO NOT detonate at the same time in the ground frame. The fact that you can't understand the issue is further evidence of your complete lack of knowledge of relativity.

No. The relativity of simultaneity is a completely separate issue. They certain DO NOT detonate at the same time in the ground frame. The fact that you can't understand the issue is further evidence of your complete lack of knowledge of relativity.

Can you read?. I said if you remove the velocity addition affect proclaimed they would detonate simultaneously.

And yes you are correct Relativity of Simultaneity has nothing what-so-ever to do with this scenario. I said that very thing in the introduction to the scenario so don't continue to pretend you are teaching or taling down. It is NOT justified.

It was my very point in this scenario that from the ground view they do not detonate simultaneously even though they are moving side by side in the same frame and that relativity of simultaneity was not a cause .

*************************************************************************************

ARE YOU GOING TO COMMENT AS TO WHY YOU ALTERED MY DIGRAM AND POSTED IT AS BEING A QUOTE FROM MY POST?

YOU COULD HAVE EASILY CUT AND PASTED IT, MODIFIED IT AND NOTED YOU HAD SWITCHED THE FUSE DIRECTION IN THE DIAGRAM.

YOU WENT THE EXTRA STEP TO MAKE IT APPEAR AS A QUOTE BY PUTING [QTE] & [/QTE] MARKERS AROUND IT TO MAKE IT APPEAR SHADED IN YOUR POST AS THOUGH IT WAS A QUOTE FROM MY POST.

THEN WHEN I DISPUTED YOUR MATH YOU MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT "LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM, IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE POSTED".

BUT THAT IS ALSO A CLEVER TRICK SINCE IT WAS CHANGED SINCE IT WAS POSTED BY ME BUT NOT SINCE IT WAS" MODIFIED" BY YOU AND POSTED AS BEING MY DIAGRAM. NICE BAIT AND SWITCH BUT YOU GOT CAUGHT. WHY?

IS THERE NOTHING YOU WOULD NOT DO TO TRY AND WIN A DEBATE?

CHEAT, LIE, DISTORT, FABRICATE, ALTER ANOTHERS WORK AND TRY TO MAKE IT APPEAR STILL HIS THEN ARGUE ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDINGS.

PATHETIC, REALLY PATHETIC.

 

[James R]

MacM:

To take a similar example. Suppose you have a bag on the passenger seat of your car as you drive along at 50 mph. How fast is the bag moving? Somebody standing beside the road says it is moving at 50 mph. You're saying that's an "illusion of motion". I'm saying that's the real speed of the bag as measured by the person on the roadside.

We are not talking about the forward motion we are talkling about the burn rate of the fuse. You may see the burning fuse moving forward at the box velocity but that is NOT burn rate of the fuse.

I addressed this point previously, saying that most of the fuse's calculated "burn rate" in the ground frame is due to the motion of the box. The remaining part of its burn rate velocity is the same as in the box frame. I note that this also disproves your "velocity dilation" concept, because to be consistent with MacM nuttyphysics the burn rate of the fuse would have to be different as observed by different observers in relative motion, and that difference could not be accounted for by the motion alone (it depends, in MacM fantasyphysics land, on the relative clock rates in the two frames, which have no length contraction in MacM physicsnuttiness.)

If I'm walking forward in a moving train and you see me from the embankment. How fast am I walking? - Not how fast am I moving. That later is what you are trying to claim and it is shear nonsense.

My response (contrary to YOUR claim that velocities dilate) is that you walk at the same speed relative to whatever you're walking on, regardless of that platform's speed relative to any other object in the universe.

This is the claim of special relativity, which is EXPLICITLY different from your claim that the walking velocity changes according to different observers.

In this instance, special relativity actually matches the "common sense" view, whereas MacM fantasyphysics does not.

No. The relativity of simultaneity is a completely separate issue. They certain DO NOT detonate at the same time in the ground frame. The fact that you can't understand the issue is further evidence of your complete lack of knowledge of relativity.

Can you read?. I said if you remove the velocity addition affect proclaimed they would detonate simultaneously.

Two events that occur simultaneously in one frame CANNOT occur simultaneously in another frame that moves relative to the first.

ARE YOU GOING TO COMMENT AS TO WHY YOU ALTERED MY DIGRAM AND POSTED IT AS BEING A QUOTE FROM MY POST?

Refer to post #778. I did not post it as a quote by you. I posted it in a quote box merely to offset the diagram from the following text.

The reason why I reversed the direction of the fuse from your diagram was because I wanted the spatial coordinates of the starts of both fuses to be x'=0, with different y' coordinates only. The y/y' coordinates are not affected by length contraction since motion is in the x direction.

THEN WHEN I DISPUTED YOUR MATH YOU MADE A BIG DEAL ABOUT "LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM, IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED SINCE POSTED".

BUT THAT IS ALSO A CLEVER TRICK SINCE IT WAS CHANGED SINCE IT WAS POSTED BY ME BUT NOT SINCE IT WAS" MODIFIED" BY YOU AND POSTED AS BEING MY DIAGRAM.

I never said it was your diagram. In fact, I did the analysis because I could have waited years for you to clarify your scenario sufficiently to make the analysis possible. I decided to shortcut the process and avoid months of diversions and tangents and posturing from you.

IS THERE NOTHING YOU WOULD NOT DO TO TRY AND WIN A DEBATE?

CHEAT, LIE, DISTORT, FABRICATE, ALTER ANOTHERS WORK AND TRY TO MAKE IT APPEAR STILL HIS THEN ARGUE ABOUT HIS UNDERSTANDINGS.

PATHETIC, REALLY PATHETIC.

It's not my fault that you didn't pay enough attention to what I actually wrote, instead making your own incorrect assumptions. It's a character flaw for you that you generally read what you want or expect to read rather than what is actually written. This is just another example. Everything has to be explained to you four or five times for it to begin to sink in, and even then that is never guaranteed. Mostly, a few days or months later you're back to the same incorrect assumptions as before and need to be re-educated.