Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

Billy T,

Since you keep mis-using the term "Reciprocity" I thought perhaps this might help.

************************* EXTRACT ***********************
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath307/kmath307.htm

A Primer on Special Relativity

............................................................

....................................

Given the above definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame – called the rest frame of the particle – with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two suitably aligned systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. The existence of this class of reference frames, and the viability of the principles of relativity and reciprocity, are inferred from experience. Once these principles have been established, the relationship between relatively moving inertial coordinate systems can then be considered.

............................................................................................
...................................
****************************************************

 

[MacM]

MacM: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.

Interesting. You would like to qualify what type of burn rate you are talking about "Calculated" or "Physicaly Real" and just confuse others. You have just admitted here that the box's motion in one orientation in the moving box causes burn rate to calculate differently but that the actual burn rate is still really the same. That has been my arguement all along.

So you agree the physical reality is burn rates remain equal and detonation is therefore simultaneous but that SR wrongfully claims burtn rates are different and detonation is not simultaneous.

Of course I full well expect you to come back and deny this is what you just said. You do that all the time.

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

Absolutely false. In my view the fuses always burn equal and the reality is that they detonate simultaneously. If veloicty addition happens to be a reality (which I doubt) then the VIEW from the ground in my physics would be precisely the same as SR and the detotantions would "Appear to occur non-simultaneously. But that would not be the physical reality just a perception based on illusion of motion.

Just like putting on those red colored glasses and claiming the universe had turned red when it clearly did not.

(it depends, in MacM fantasyphysics land, on the relative clock rates in the two frames, which have no length contraction in MacM physicsnuttiness.)

The different clock rates is in agreement with SR and all that means is the ground frame would see the burn rates and detonations occur simultaneous but taking a different amount of time than in the moving frame.

If however velocity addition is valid (which I doubt) then in fact the ground frame will see burn rates precisely as does SR but the shift in the burn rate is perceptional and not physical reality.

You really do not understand my views. So why do you insist on trying to tell people what I think because you are totally wrong as to the implications of the view.

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.

??? "Velocities dilate??? Whatever that means.

But thanks for agreeing that the walking speed is physically the same in all frames and that SR's prediction that my walking speed is different because of the trains motion is bogus.

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

BullShi_: The man walking on the moving train seen from the embankment is precisely the same situation as the burning fuse in a moving box seen by a resting observer.

From your 877

The fuse really does burn faster in the direction of motion due to the added motion of the box containing it.

From above:

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.

So which of these comments is a lie? In one you state flat out the burn rates are physically different but here you admit it is a calculated burn rate but the actual burn rate stays the same.

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

Please clarify. You have made statements that are in complete agreement with my views. Please show where you think oherwise. The problem here is you are flip-flopping all over the place.

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

Bait and switch. You are invoking relativity of simultaneity between frames.

I have already stated that the burn rates and detonations are not simultaneous frame to frame but that is not at issue. They have different time standards and distance. However in the moving frame the burn rates and detonation s are simultaneous.

But in the ground frame the frame rates and detonations are not simultaneous and the TNT is side by side at the same distance and having the same motion to the ground frame. Relativity of Simultaneity does not apply on this point.

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.

Without cause. Had you drawn you own diagram you would not have put it in quotes. Having cut and pasted my diagram you had to go to extra trouble to put it in quotes after having altered the diagram.

Further you could have mad specific note of what you had done but instead once I challenged you mathematical results you didn't say "Please note I altered your diagram". Instead you replied "You are incorect and the diagram has not been edited since it was posted".

Of coursethat technically is a true statement because you will claim since you posted the altered diagram but it implies since I had drawn it.

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.

Tis is a valid reason to make the change but you could have been honest and forth right rather than carry on for several posts just claiming I could do the math. You knew when I told you you had used the (v+u) format rather than the (v-u) format I was referring to the direction of the flame vs the direction of the box motion but you didn't clarify your work you just continued to insist I didn't know what I was takling about.

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.

WOW. My #756 0/12/09 12:45AM (Almost 1 AM) and your #778 8/12/09 6:28PM.

Seems to me I went to bed. Got up went to work and along about supper time after work that night you felt it hd been years an I hadn't responded. Considering I typically post numerous replies every day and night your claim falls flat here. That is not why you posted an altered version of my diagram as a quote in your post.

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.

This garbage CYA doesn't merit a reply.

I still remember back before I ran off Yuri how he cut and pasted one of my posts and altered the punctuation to make it read differently, posted it in quotes by me] and then threw a pissy fit about what he claimed I had said. I recall you siding with him and him claiming I had edited my post to change the puncuation to CYA myself until I proved the time and date of my last edit was before his post.

So I don't take these "Accidental" alterations of my posts lightly.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Let's see if we can clear this up.

We need to define exactly what we mean by "burn rate". My picture of this situation is that you light one end of the fuse, then a flash of gunpowder (or whatever) moves along the length of the fuse at constant speed until it reaches the TNT - just like in the movies where the guy lights a trail of gunpowder on the ground.

By the "burn rate" of the fuse, I then mean the speed at which that flashing, burning gunpowder is observed to move along. Now, if your definition of "burn rate" is different from that, please let me know.

In the box, the distance between the start of each fuse I assumed was 3 metres, and the rate at which the flash is observed to move along is 1 metre per second.

Now suppose that the entire box moves in the same direction as the flash, at say 10 metres per second relative to the ground. What I say is that an observer who is stationary now measures that flash to be moving along at 10 + 3 = 13 metres per second. (Note: at these low speeds I am ignoring the tiny relativistic effects and using Galilean relativity only.)

What you seem to be saying is that the ground observer still says the flash is going at 3 metres per second, which completely ignores the speed of the box relative to the ground. Now, either you're as thick as a brick, or you're using a definition of "burn rate" that defines that rate ONLY in the rest frame of the fuse. The reason I suspect you may be as thick as a brick is that you seem to be asserting that the 13 metres per second is an "illusion of motion". The motion of the box relative to the ground is no illusion. The box really is moving at 10 metres per second relative to the ground.

Have I got you right here? If not, please clarify your point and definition of "burn rate". Once we've done that, maybe we can get back to whatever point you're trying to make about relativity.

Absolutely false. In my view the fuses always burn equal and the reality is that they detonate simultaneously.

You are asserting, without proof or argument, that this happens in ALL frames.

Will you acknowledge that according to special relativity the detonations CANNOT be simultaneous in the two different frames, or do you wish to dispute my claim about what special relativity says?

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.

??? "Velocities dilate??? Whatever that means.

We went through this a few days ago. Remember? You said that if I'm standing on the road and I measure the speed of your car as you drive past me as 50 mph, then you, in your car, will NOT measure my speed as 50 mph, but as some other velocity. You said that different reference frames measure different relative velocities. This is contrary to both common sense and special relativity. I have named your nonsense concept "velocity dilation".

I have already stated that the burn rates and detonations are not simultaneous frame to frame but that is not at issue. They have different time standards and distance. However in the moving frame the burn rates and detonation s are simultaneous.

That is not the case according to special relativity, as I clearly showed in post #778. You agreed that my calculations in that post were correct. Have you changed your mind? If so, please tell me where I made my mistake in post #778.

....Seems to me I went to bed. Got up went to work and along about supper time after work that night you felt it hd been years an I hadn't responded. Considering I typically post numerous replies every day and night your claim falls flat here. That is not why you posted an altered version of my diagram as a quote in your post.

I'm not at all worried about a reply delay of a day or two. Presumably you have a real life outside of sciforums and need to eat and sleep etc. I certainly do. What I was referring to was your tendency to waffle on and repeat yourself over and over instead of actually answering straightforward questions put to you. I thought I'd save some time by posting my own analysis rather than trying to extract your analysis from you over a period of months. I'm still waiting on your analysis of the problem, as it happens.

 

[MacM]

MacM:I think we're talking at cross purposes here. Let's see if we can clear this up.

We need to define exactly what we mean by "burn rate". My picture of this situation is that you light one end of the fuse, then a flash of gunpowder (or whatever) moves along the length of the fuse at constant speed until it reaches the TNT - just like in the movies where the guy lights a trail of gunpowder on the ground.

By the "burn rate" of the fuse, I then mean the speed at which that flashing, burning gunpowder is observed to move along. Now, if your definition of "burn rate" is different from that, please let me know.

Your definition should be fine as "The flame moving aloing the fuse". The problem then is you add the motion of the box using SR. That IS motion of the flame but NOT along the fuse which is the only physically real burn rate.

In the box, the distance between the start of each fuse I assumed was 3 metres, and the rate at which the flash is observed to move along is 1 metre per second.

Now suppose that the entire box moves in the same direction as the flash, at say 10 metres per second relative to the ground. What I say is that an observer who is stationary now measures that flash to be moving along at 10 + 3 = 13 metres per second. (Note: at these low speeds I am ignoring the tiny relativistic effects and using Galilean relativity only.)

What you seem to be saying is that the ground observer still says the flash is going at 3 metres per second, which completely ignores the speed of the box relative to the ground.

False and you know that since I discuss the time dilation affects of the boxes motion. The point is you cleverly (actually not so cleverly) now try to substitute the observed movement of the flash to become burn rate. IT IS NOT. Tthe physical burn rate is still 3m/s. The motion of the flame is 13m/s.

Now, either you're as thick as a brick, or you're using a definition of "burn rate" that defines that rate ONLY in the rest frame of the fuse. The reason I suspect you may be as thick as a brick is that you seem to be asserting that the 13 metres per second is an "illusion of motion". The motion of the box relative to the ground is no illusion. The box really is moving at 10 metres per second relative to the ground.

No it is not an illusion that the box moves but it is invalid physics to now claim the flame is moving along the fuse at 3m/s + 10 m/s = 13 m/a.

NOW THAT IS THICK AS A BRICK THINKING. It is not an illusion of motion to see the flame moving 13m/s but is is not physics to then falsely declare the flame burn rate is 13m/s because it isn't the fuse is moving forward at 10m/s such that the flame still moves along the fuse (actual physical burn rate) =3m/s.

To claim otherwise is simply absurd physics.

Have I got you right here? If not, please clarify your point and definition of "burn rate". Once we've done that, maybe we can get back to whatever point you're trying to make about relativity.

It should be clear but I'll repeat. "Burn Rate" is the flame speed ALONG THE FUSE" and has nothing to do with the movement of the box; except the theoretical affect of special relativity's velocity addition.

You are asserting, without proof or argument, that this happens in ALL frames.

I have no idea what you mean here. My arguement is that the real physical fuse burn rate never changes, only the perception that it changes due to time dilation. The issue is not that burn rates from the ground do not appear to change they do but the issues is the affect of velocity addition has on causing simultaneous events to become non-simultaneous in the same frame.

Being in the same frame they are the saem distance away and are moving in a box side by side at the same velocity but due to the artifical mathematical construction of SR the flame burn rate must increase in the dierection of motion.

You have caused a shift in physics between frame views.

Will you acknowledge that according to special relativity the detonations CANNOT be simultaneous in the two different frames, or do you wish to dispute my claim about what special relativity says?

First let me clarify. The relativity of simultaneity principle is not involved in this issue.

It is true that SR requires the events to occur at different times. That is if the detonation is simultaneous in the box at 12:00 Noon but could be 12:01 PM from the ground. But that is not the issue.

The issue is that the reality is the detonations will both occur simultaneously at 12:00 Noon and should be observed at 12:01 PM from the ground. But due to the velocity additon component in SR they become non-simultaneous i.e. at 12:01PM & 12:02PM.

We went through this a few days ago. Remember? You said that if I'm standing on the road and I measure the speed of your car as you drive past me as 50 mph, then you, in your car, will NOT measure my speed as 50 mph, but as some other velocity. You said that different reference frames measure different relative velocities. This is contrary to both common sense and special relativity. I have named your nonsense concept "velocity dilation".

OK. Now I understand your comment.

However, your objection does not address the facts atv hand. As I have correctly point outthe moving observer cannot detect or measure any change in distance or clock tick rate. His only physics data is that he traveled 60 miles in 48 minuter and therfroe MUST compute v = 80 Mph.

While at the same time the resting observer observes him trvel the same 60 miles but taking an hour of v = 60 Mph.

These are the facts. Now you ignore the fact that I have said in an absolute frame the veloicties ARE symmetrical but that they can only be calculated as assymmetrical.

You have not rebutted this physics fact. So it is not nonsense and merely points to the fact tht SR relies on an absolute frame by declaring relativie velocity is symmetrical.

That is not the case according to special relativity, as I clearly showed in post #778. You agreed that my calculations in that post were correct. Have you changed your mind? If so, please tell me where I made my mistake in post #778.

Give me a break. I have made it clear that I did not agree with your math. I said "I accept your post because it agrees with the affect but I'm not verifying your math".

We then argued until I found out you had alterd my diagram and disguised it as a quote from my post. Then I agreed you math was correct.

I'm not at all worried about a reply delay of a day or two. Presumably you have a real life outside of sciforums and need to eat and sleep etc. I certainly do. What I was referring to was your tendency to waffle on and repeat yourself over and over instead of actually answering straightforward questions put to you. I thought I'd save some time by posting my own analysis rather than trying to extract your analysis from you over a period of months. I'm still waiting on your analysis of the problem, as it happens.

More selfserving babble.

 

[Billy T]

Once again MacM’s inconsistency and self contradiction is evident as well DOCUMENTED in exchange below:

{post 745}...
(2) That their speed of mutual or relative separation is the same.
...

{post 746}...
Prove it.
Velocity according to observers:
MacM v = ds / dt = 60 / 0.75 hours = 80 Mph.
Billy T v = ds / dt = 60 / 1 hour = 60 Mph.
...

{post 752}...
Thus Billy T computes MacM a first receding and then returning at 80mph in agreement with MacM's own frame's reality that we are separating at 80 mph.
Billy T's 80mph = MacM's 80mph Q.E.D. Not the conflict that MacM achieves by accepting SR's time dilation and rejecting SR's space contraction. ...

and
later even by MacM contradicting MacM with an appeal to authority (see larger section of text) :

{post 746}... A Primer on Special Relativity

Given the above definition of inertial reference frames, the principle of relativity asserts that for any material particle in any state of motion there exists an inertial reference frame – called the rest frame of the particle – with respect to which the particle is instantaneously at rest (i.e., the change of the spatial coordinates with respect to the time coordinate is zero). This principle is usually extended to include reciprocity, meaning that for any two suitably aligned systems S1 and S2 of inertial coordinates, if the spatial origin of S1 has velocity v with respect to S2, then the spatial origin of S2 has velocity -v with respect to S1. ...

Note in post 745 I said the two “speeds” are the same. As speed is the magnitude of velocity MacM’s own quoted authority (post 881) stating one velocity is the negative of the other confirms my post 745 assertion that each frame is receding from the other at the same speed, not one at 60mph and the other at 80mph as MacM’s version of SR insisted.

BTW this is the fourth time I have DEMONSTRATED and DOCUMENTED that MacM’s version of SR is self contradictory!!!!

For the three previous DOCUMENTED demonstrations of self contradiction in MacM’s version of SR see:
Post 118
Post 198
Post 804, the original or its more compact restatement at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2343643&postcount=829
The main part of which is:
“…To show that DZion was incorrect to assert that any mass traveling at the speed of light would be at absolute zero temperature, I imagined a mass of lead at the melting temperature T and that it is half solid and half liquid. I also assumed that it was traveling at 0.99999999999999999999999999999999C and used two different approaches in post 804 which were:

(1) Note that all frames, even this very rapid one, know the mass is half solid / half liquid and thus is at the melting point temperature, T which is certainly not absolute zero.

(2) The using the atomic definition of temperature, related to square of atomic speeds, (ds/dt), I pointed out that “dt” was reduced in our frame’s seconds by “time dilation” and “ds” was reduced by “space contraction” by the same factors, so the speed of each molecule was unchanged. Hence again, consistent with (1) temperature does not change with speed of mass being consider in some other frame.

Now you, MacM deny “space contraction” exist, so if that were true, then approach (2) would contradict method (1).

For me, but not you, a theory which leads to self contradiction is not valid. …”

Which MacM “rebuts” in his typical style here:

{post 819}

{post 804}… Note that if space did not contract, (2)'s approach would NOT agree with (1) so the fact that a given mass of half liquid lead / half solid lead exists as half liquid / half solid in all frames is strong proof of space contraction.

Valid physics is NOT self contradictory.

You are simply nuts and talking BS. You have proven nothing.

Note that is ALL of post 819.
The larger, bold, type above is MacM’s typical logical, well-argued, rebuttal.

And for DOCUMENTED proof that MacM lies when asserting he has never changed his position See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2337344&postcount=2210

SUMMARY:
MacM never DOCUMENTS his assertions, only asserts that I post BS, etc. MacM gives “facts” as if an infallible God correcting >100,000 Ph.D.s in Physics and 100 years of experiments confirming standard SR.

MacM’s main logical and experimental errors, based on this confirmed physics, are:

(1) Admits standard SR follows mathematically from: (1) Constancy of speed of light and (2) Constancy of physics in all inertial frames, but still states standard SR is in error.

(2) States that space does not contract when moving frame’s lengths are described in the “at rest” frame’s units (seconds & meters).

(3) States that frame A can separate from frame B at a different speed than frame B is separating from frame A. (E.g. 80mph vs. 60mph in post 746, partially quoted above.)

(4) Claims with ZERO evidence that radioactive half life is a function of speed.
(In spite of fact that speed is ALWAYS wrt some reference point and there are “zillions” of different speeds for reference points in different frames. Thus MacM’s "half life is a function of speed" requires that at the same time, the half life has a zillion different values! – If true, that would make half live a meaningless concept.)

(5) Postulates that there exist special preferred frames, which MacM calls “Preferred Common Rest Frames.” (or often only “Common Rest Frames,” and frequently indicated by CRF.)

(6) States that most velocities are only “illusion of motion.” (The “real motion” / “real velocities” are only those with respect to the CFR.)

(7) Asserts that there is a real physical change (of time only) in the frame with “real velocity.” For example its cesium clocks tick slower but this is not noticeable in that frame as all clocks are equally affected. MacM either (1) ignores fact cesium clocks only count # cycles of the cesium radiation to advance each and every second. OR (2) asserts that the energy levels of atoms change so that the moving clock is counting a lower frequency. He does not reply when I point out that these energy levels can be CALCULTED from quantum physics THEORY. –I.e. MacM is tacitly assuming that even THEORY MUST CHANGE for physicists in the moving frame!!!

PS - I predict MacM will either ignore this post OR give it more than his usual rebuttal - I.e. call it BS pilled on more BS as MacM never documents any error of mine (other than to God like ASSERT it is false.)

 

[MacM]

Once again MacM’s inconsistency and self contradiction is evident as well DOCUMENTED in exchange below: and
later even by MacM contradicting MacM with an appeal to authority (see larger section of text) :Note in post 745 I said the two “speeds” are the same. As speed is the magnitude of velocity MacM’s own quoted authority (post 881) stating one velocity is the negative of the other confirms my post 745 assertion that each frame is receding from the other at the same speed, not one at 60mph and the other at 80mph as MacM’s version of SR insisted.

Pathetic. You simply want to argue. I SAIS absolute relative velicty is symmetrical. I SAID a moving observer has no physics basis to conclude distance contracteed. That he only knows he went 60 miles in 48 minutes or was therfore must have been going 80 Mph while a resting observer would see him trvel 60 miles in one hour or compute 60 Mph.

I have not once claimed he wqs traveling 80 Mph. I SAID he must compute 80 Mph and not conclude distance contr4acted.

You have said nothing to rebutt that fact. The reciprocity link I posted merely repeats the absolute view of relative velocity for which I happen to agree.

The only other interesting point beside the one I raise about computed vleocity is that SR uses an absolute view once again in its assumptions.

BTW this is the fourth time I have DEMONSTRATED and DOCUMENTED that MacM’s version of SR is self contradictory!!!!

In your dreams. You have demonstrated no such thing. You have demonstrated only that you either choose to not read what I write or deliberately distort what I write and argue with your own flawed logic.

For the three previous DOCUMENTED demonstrations of self contradiction in MacM’s version of SR see:
Post 118
Post 198

None of which are valid claims on your part. The fact that you do not know thedifference in "Calculated Velocity" vs " Relative Veloicty" is not my problem.

Post 804, the original or its more compact restatement at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2343643&postcount=829
The main part of which is:
“…To show that DZion was incorrect to assert that any mass traveling at the speed of light would be at absolute zero temperature, I imagined a mass of lead at the melting temperature T and that it is half solid and half liquid. I also assumed that it was traveling at 0.99999999999999999999999999999999C and used two different approaches in post 804 which were:

(1) Note that all frames, even this very rapid one, know the mass is half solid / half liquid and thus is at the melting point temperature, T which is certainly not absolute zero.

(2) The using the atomic definition of temperature, related to square of atomic speeds, (ds/dt), I pointed out that “dt” was reduced in our frame’s seconds by “time dilation” and “ds” was reduced by “space contraction” by the same factors, so the speed of each molecule was unchanged. Hence again, consistent with (1) temperature does not change with speed of mass being consider in some other frame.

Which is another example of your continued attempt to divert issues using overly complex and lengthy scenarios that have nothing to do with MacM.

Now you, MacM deny “space contraction” exist, so if that were true, then approach (2) would contradict method (1).

Your attempt here causes you to violate everythingelse in SR. IF both time dilation and length contraction occur in the same frame simultaneously then in my example the traveling observer will go 48 miles in 38.4 minutes or he will compute he traveled 80 Mph.

For me, but not you, a theory which leads to self contradiction is not valid. …”

That would be true if there are contrictions, so when are you going to trash SR which claims my traveler is going 60 Mph when in fact he measures 60 miles in 48 minutes hence must have been going 80 Mph?

Which MacM “rebuts” in his typical style here:
Note that is ALL of post 819.
The larger, bold, type above is MacM’s typical logical, well-argued, rebuttal. [/;quote]

MacM get tired of repeating opoints that go ignored and irritated by continued BS from jerks that just want to argue and never address issues raised but post their own scenarios which either are irrelevant or distort the issue and then argue against their own stupidity and attempt to blame it on the original poster.

And for DOCUMENTED proof that MacM lies when asserting he has never changed his position See:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2337344&postcount=2210

SUMMARY:
MacM never DOCUMENTS his assertions, only asserts that I post BS, etc. MacM gives “facts” as if an infallible God correcting >100,000 Ph.D.s in Physics and 100 years of experiments confirming standard SR.

Garbage.

MacM’s main logical and experimental errors, based on this confirmed physics, are:

(1) Admits standard SR follows mathematically from: (1) Constancy of speed of light and (2) Constancy of physics in all inertial frames, but still states standard SR is in error.

Garbage. You choose to ignore that in my view the measured invariance of light is an illusion not a physical fact.

(2) States that space does not contract when moving frame’s lengths are described in the “at rest” frame’s units (seconds & meters).

I have never denied the "Illusion of Motion" and you have never posted any rebuttal to my claim that it is an optical illusion.

(3) States that frame A can separate from frame B at a different speed than frame B is separating from frame A. (E.g. 80mph vs. 60mph in post 746, partially quoted above.)

Never said any such thing. A perfect example of your distortions and lies. Thanks you.

All know I said the absolute velocity of sepertion is symmetrical but that the observers will CALCULATE different veloicties.

You have never addressed that FACT and it is a fact because the moving observer cannot and does not see, measure or detect any contraction or dilation affects. Hence all he has in terms of physics is to conclude that v = ds/dt = 60 mile / 48 minutes = 80 Mph; while the resting observer sees, measures and detects that he traveled 60 miles in 60 minutes or MUST conclude that v = ds/dt = 60 miles / 60 minutes = 60 Mph.

Now respond to this issue and stop your nonsense.

(4) Claims with ZERO evidence that radioactive half life is a function of speed.

Gee I wonder what muon decay is?

(In spite of fact that speed is ALWAYS wrt some reference point and there are “zillions” of different speeds for reference points in different frames. Thus MacM’s "half life is a function of speed" requires that at the same time, the half life has a zillion different values! – If true, that would make half live a meaningless concept.)

Why would I be surprised that you choose to ignore the issues of muon speed wrt the CMB which is what I have said. Why because you are an obvious liar, distorter and self congratulatory fool.

(5) Postulates that there exist special preferred frames, which MacM calls “Preferred Common Rest Frames.” (or often only “Common Rest Frames,” and frequently indicated by CRF.)

Which you have not rebutted as being fact. I claim the GPS ECI frame IS a common preferred rest frame between orbit and earths surface. Now if you disagree please actually post an example where the orbit veloicty can be declared to be zero (at rest) and that the ECI has the recipocal velocity mandated by SR. Go ahead we have BEEN wating.

Continuing to repeat these foolish distortions does not make them valid.

(6) States that most velocities are only “illusion of motion.” (The “real motion” / “real velocities” are only those with respect to the CFR.)

That is only partially correct. They are the only real velocities from which you can correctly compute relavistic affects. Real velocities, that is some absolute velocity to an absolute rest frame, should it exist is unknown. But I hasten to add that such absolute rest frame is not required that every inertial velocity can be consider a rest frame but calculation between clocks must include a COMMON rest frame .

You cannot just choose which frame of a moving pair you want to assume is at rest. They may have both moved from their common rest frame and just as I have numeerous times shown relative velocity between clocks does not computte time dilation correctly UNLESS one clock has remained at rest to the common rest frame.

(7) Asserts that there is a real physical change (of time only) in the frame with “real velocity.” For example its cesium clocks tick slower but this is not noticeable in that frame as all clocks are equally affected. MacM either (1) ignores fact cesium clocks only count # cycles of the cesium radiation to advance each and every second.

And you ignore that the second in a moving frame is dilated which means it is NOT of the same length. You are equating the same word used in different frames but not equating the numerical value based on emperically demonstrated time dilation between frames.

How in the hell can you declare time dilation and then swear nothing changes. How? By being a dense jerk.

OR (2) asserts that the energy levels of atoms change so that the moving clock is counting a lower frequency. He does not reply when I point out that these energy levels can be CALCULTED from quantum physics THEORY. –I.e. MacM is tacitly assuming that even THEORY MUST CHANGE for physicists in the moving frame!!!

More BS. An observer applying theory in amoving frame does NOT see any physics changes. Physics in all frames "Appear" to remain constant even though absolute conditons have changed.

That is frequency drops to .8 and so does clock tick rate such that en the end one beat per tick remains one beat per tick. No change in physics , energy "Calculation" etc. But energy on some absolute sacle would be different.

PS - I predict MacM will either ignore this post OR give it more than his usual rebuttal - I.e. call it BS pilled on more BS as MacM never documents any error of mine (other than to God like ASSERT it is false.)

More selfserving BS. I'm really getting tired of following you arond correcting your lies, distortions, misconceptions, misunderstandings and ignorance.

I'm saving this URL so that I will just refer to this post every time you tell more lies. So stop wasting our time.

 

[Billy T]

MacM's post 886 is quite long, but again only filled with his assertions -Not one link of DOCUMENTATION as my posts 885 was filled with. In fact, the only thing new in MacM's post 886 is to call mine "garbage" instead of his usual reply "BS."

 

[MacM]

MacM's post 886 is quite long, but again only filled with his assertions -Not one link of DOCUMENTATION as my posts 885 was filled with. In fact, the only thing new in MacM's post 886 is to call mine "garbage" instead of his usual reply "BS."

Readers are directed to 886. My rebuttals to false and distorted comments by Billy T are made therein.

 

[Billy T]

...You have demonstrated only that you either choose to not read what I write or deliberately distort what I write and argue with your own flawed logic. ...

Perhaps you do not even know how to Document (instead of just claim or assert) things like this? Use my post 885 as a guide:

I.e. Cite your text and give the number your post, then I cite my reply text and give the number of it.

If there were any truth to your quoted text above you could (and should) do this documentation.

I.e. cite your text with post number. Then give my text "distorting it," with post number.

You merely stating / claiming, without ANY documentation, that I distort your statements is not persuading anyone who has read post 885 and see how a well documented post is made.

 

[MacM]

Perhaps you do not even know how to Document (instead of just claim or assert) things like this? Use my post 885 as a guide:

I.e. Cite your text and give the number your post, then I cite my reply text and give the number of it.

If there were any truth to your quoted text above you could (and should) do this documentation.

I.e. cite your text with post number. Then give my text "distorting it," with post number.

You merely stating / claiming, without ANY documentation, that I distort your statements is not persuading anyone who has read post 885 and see how a well documented post is made.

Like I said I'm not chasing you around any more correcting all your bullshit.

Now for other readers pleasure:

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

Well as usual you seem to have just reached out and in desperation grabbed something to try and bullshit your way through justifying your position but it has no scientific basis.

Here are a couple of comments from a high energy particle physicist friend of mine.

*******************************************************
Re: Nuclear temperature
Sent: August 18th, 2009, 4:31 pm

Dan

Are you talking about single particles? If so, temperature isn't really a correct concept.

Don

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

Re: Nuclear temperature
Sent: August 18th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Dan

Temperature is a property that doesn't always map well onto single nuclei or atoms.

Don

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

Now for my added comments:

For your information in nuclear physics ds/ts = Q1/T1 - Q0/T0 which is a term of entrophy.

So are you are trying to call temperature the square of entrophy? That is nuts.

(ds/dt)^2 = Q1^2/T1^2 - 2 Q1Q0/T1T0 + Q0^2/T0^2

But more importantly is the fact that ds / dt would vary as a function of Q (which is energy) per Time.

That would be precisely what my view would predict and that is a change in energy would be comensurate with a change in time and hence NO change in temperature.

Try again.

 

[MacM]

For everyones edification here is a link to a paper regarding particle internal temperature.

As you can see the format is NOTHING near like that claimed by our local genius Billy T.

http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/f4926fe1cfad944bec77de9b4053cfc89155e535.jpg

 

[Billy T]

For everyones edification here is a link to a paper regarding particle internal temperature.
As you can see the format is NOTHING near like that claimed by our local genius Billy T....

I said NOTHING ABOUT SINGLE PARTICLE TEMPERATURE - that is a meaningless concept.* You are not fooling anyone by being foolish.

This post of your's MacM is just more of your "duck and weave" distortions:
Here is what I said in post 885 (repeating earlier posts):

Post 804, the original or its more compact restatement at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2343643&postcount=829
The main part of which is:
“…To show that DZion was incorrect to assert that any mass traveling at the speed of light would be at absolute zero temperature, I imagined a mass of lead at the melting temperature T and that it is half solid and half liquid. I also assumed that it was traveling at 0.99999999999999999999999999999999C and used two different approaches in post 804 which were:

(1) Note that all frames, even this very rapid one, know the mass is half solid / half liquid and thus is at the melting point temperature, T which is certainly not absolute zero.

(2) The using the atomic definition of temperature, related to square of atomic speeds, (ds/dt), I pointed out that “dt” was reduced in our frame’s seconds by “time dilation” and “ds” was reduced by “space contraction” by the same factors, so the speed of each molecule was unchanged. Hence again, consistent with (1) temperature does not change with speed of mass being consider in some other frame.

Now you, MacM deny “space contraction” exist, so if that were true, then approach (2) would contradict method (1).

For me, but not you, a theory which leads to self contradiction is not valid. …”

--------------------
*One of the requirements for temperature to exist is a large enough number of particles for the average Kinetic Energy to be well defined.

Another requirement for a temperature to even exist is that the distribution of particle speed MUST be that of the Maxwell/ Boltzmann form.

Why I said: a mass of lead, half liquid / half solid at temperature T, the melting point of lead.
---------------
---------------
Later by edit:
I now have looked at your reference MacM:

MacM even for you this is low – worse that the prior reference you gave which was just one guy’s Email to another!

Here is the start of your referenced link:

“It has recently been proposed* that every particle can be intrinsically characterized by an internal friction coefficient…” (He goes on to effectively deny quantum mechanics.)
-----------------
*Guess who his referenced “proposer” is. :shrug:
Did you say the jerk himself? You did!

Well, Give that winner a kuppy doll! (MacM can spare one - he has collected so many.)

 

[MacM]

I said NOTHING ABOUT SINGLE PARTICLE TEMPERATURE - that is a meaningless concept.*

This post of your MacM is just more of your "duck and weave"distortions": You are not fooling anyone by being foolish.

Here is what I said in post 885 (repeating earlier posts):

Post 804, the original or its more compact restatement at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2343643&postcount=829
The main part of which is:
“…To show that DZion was incorrect to assert that any mass traveling at the speed of light would be at absolute zero temperature, I imagined a mass of lead at the melting temperature T and that it is half solid and half liquid. I also assumed that it was traveling at 0.99999999999999999999999999999999C and used two different approaches in post 804 which were:

(1) Note that all frames, even this very rapid one, know the mass is half solid / half liquid and thus is at the melting point temperature, T which is certainly not absolute zero.

(2) The using the atomic definition of temperature, related to square of atomic speeds, (ds/dt), I pointed out that “dt” was reduced in our frame’s seconds by “time dilation” and “ds” was reduced by “space contraction” by the same factors, so the speed of each molecule was unchanged. Hence again, consistent with (1) temperature does not change with speed of mass being consider in some other frame.

Now you, MacM deny “space contraction” exist, so if that were true, then approach (2) would contradict method (1).

For me, but not you, a theory which leads to self contradiction is not valid. …”

--------------------
*One of the requirements for temperature to exist is a large enough number of particles for the average Kinetic Energy to be well defined.

Another requirement for a temperature to even exist is that the distribution of particle speed MUST be that of the Maxwell/ Boltzmann form.

Why I said: a mass of lead, half liquid / half solid at temperature T, the melting point of lead.

Not at all. Just seeing how you like having your words taken out of context. Not fun huh. You keep it up I'll keep it up and you can spend your time making these corrective posts just like you have been doing to me.

Now as far as giving e-mail. He and I have had several public debates and this is not considered private. Further I have not given his full name and contact so he won't be bothered. But he is a high energy particle physicist currently working at an accelerator.

Now FYI: You seem to have forgotten that I have said several times that mass contracts but space does not. So your example is within my view of physics.

That is ds/dt does not change temperature because mass does contract and time does dilate. The bonds between particles is not mere vacuum of space, it consists of various force couplings, EM waves, etc., and these things (not space itself) contract within space. The massive objects take up less volume in space but space did not contract.

So stop distorting my view and I'll stop taking yours out of context otherwise you are going to learn what it is like to be constantly misquoted, argue against fabricated issues, deliberate distortions or ignorant posts, etc.

Hiope you get the instructional benefit from my post. You distort my view I'm going to distort your view and you can waste your time for a change.

Since I am unable to post a URL under "Edit" I'm posting a followup message to this.

 

[MacM]

894 is 893b Followup.

Here in fact is a diagram from the UniKEF manuscript from 1954. When were you born Billy T?. I've probably said mass contracts for longer than you have been alive.

7a is mass motion to the UniKEF.

7b is the affect on mass dimension.

7c is the affect on energy transfer efficiency and the cause of apparent relavistic mass.

The point here is all those pages after page of lengthy scenarios turns out to be irrelevant to the issue at hand and you are wasting my time and the time of readers. All you are doing is confusing the issue.

Stick to the point and issue directly or stop posting. If not I'll bury you in your same bullshit.

 

[Billy T]

... Just seeing how you like having your words taken out of context. Not fun huh. You keep it up I'll keep it up ...

There is a BIG difference between our post:

I DOCUMENT by quoting you and telling the post number (as in post 885)

You merely assert, God like, that I post garbage and BS. You have NEVER given ANY documentation that I have distored your POV.

 

[MacM]

There is a BIG difference between our post:

I DOCUMENT by quoting you and telling the post number (as in post 885)

You merely assert, God like, that I post garbage and BS. You have NEVER given ANY documentation that I have distored your POV.

Doesn't matter your post is full of distortions, mis-representations and completely off topic irrelevant BS.

As I have just demonstrated (and you can go search for posts as well) I have always maintained that mass contracts. So your Bullshi_ is nothing more than Bullshi_. don't know what you are talkling about or you are deliberately lying. Which is it?


Now are you ready to address the issue?

Question: "What physics data basis can you post to suggest much less demonstrate that a moving observer would conclude he traveled less distance?"

Hint: Remember all he has is a know rest distance and the fact that his o-dometer and meter stick plus his count of mile markers confirm he went 60 miles. He cannot dectect that his clock may be running slow he only knows that it only accumulated 48 minutes during the trip.

v = ds/dt is the only physics conclusion he can make and that is that he was traveling 80 Mph. While the resting observer knows he trveled 60 miles as well and timed his trip at 60 minutes or believes he traveled 60 Mph.

The resting observer must conclude his clock ran slow and he must conclude he traveled faster. Those are the ONLY views supported by empeerical data and physics available to the observers.

NOW ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.

 

[Billy T]

...I've probably said mass contracts for longer than you have been alive.

More self quoting I see as if that proved anything more that quoting the jerk in your recent post who aslo references himself as evidence.

 

[MacM]

More self quoting I see as if that proved anything more that quoting the jerk in your recent post who aslo references himself as evidence.

What is wrong with you? You state I believe temperature must change because time dilates and mass does't contract. That is a false statement about my view.

For me to post a 55 year old document authored by me is "Self Quoting" how in the hell else would you think I or anyone could correct your lies?

If you don't like this tit-for-tat then knock it off. If you don't understand my view then ask but don't assume to know based on your misunderstandings.

You could have and should have first asked if I believed in contraction of mass. I would have ansered you directly and you could have saved a lot of time posting your BS scenario and making false claims against me.

Now stop dodging and answer my question above. Do you agree a moving observer MUST compute a higher velocity? Yes/No.?

If No then you must explain fully why not. Your word about what SR says is not a physics response. I have stated what the physics evidence is for each observer. If that is incorrect say how.

 

[Billy T]

... You state I believe temperature must change because time dilates and mass does't contract. That is a false statement about my view.

No I never mis quoted you as saying anything about MASS contracting. I said you claim space does not contract, based on your statement:

{Post 768} … I fully agree and that should educate people that the arguement about physical length contraction is BS.

Not a word about mass contracting. You speak of LENGTH CONTRACTING, not mass contracting!

The Duck and Weave champ is MacM still.

See MacM, When you are not lying it is easy to find and quote what the other actually said. You should try it sometime.

We were discussion the atomic speed, ds/dt. You agreed that dt contracted but not ds. Thus, with your version of SR the average temperature of half liquid / half solid lead mass considered from the atomic definition of temperature would change with speed. Increase if only dt got smaller. Then it would be all liquid in some frames and at least part solid in others. - A clear self contraditicion for your version of SR.

 

[MacM]

No I never mis quoted you as saying anything about MASS contracting. I said you claim space does not contract, based on your statement:

Ah but space does not contract. The mass contracts in space taking less space volume. See you don't even understand the view yet you make like you are proving it wrong. It is bullshi_ and you need to stop.

Your view of my view is incorrect, not my view.

Not a word about mass contracting. You speak of LENGTH CONTRACTING, not mass contracting! I have numersous times stted spatial contraction. Why do you suppose I differentiate spatial contraction vs length contraction.

The Duck and Weave champ is MacM still.

It is not duck and weave to correct distortions.

See MacM, When you are not lying it is easy to find and quote what the other actually said. You should try it sometime.

Try this asshole. (I'll be back with a quote from a public formal debate with a high energy physicist regarding my view on Lorentz Contraction.) It is years old and still publically available so stuff your distorting, lying ass.

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1038

I cannot link a specific post because the thread is closed but you may look for my post dated March 1st, 2006 at 9:31 PM. There are several other places I mention it as well.

My view is mass contracts taking less spatial volume butr space does not contract. Clear enough? Move on. Try some other irrelevant claim.