Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[phyti]

I still think MacM and James are debating a fictitious point.
The molecules of the fuse are not moving in the box. Each maintain the
same distance from the charge until they disappear in combustion. The burn
line is just a sequence of burn events, like the 'wave' the fans do at a sports event, or the wave on water.
The form moves, but nothing material is moving across the surface. It's not a condition for addition of velocities. Wouldn't the perpendicular x-y frame have the
same td factors as the MM experiment, gamma (g) for y, g^2 for x?

 

[Billy T]

...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.

Don't bother. That is no good. It won't prove anything. You need to quote ME to show that I have distorted your POV.

You can always find some jerk to join you in disputing standard SR.

 

[phyti]

(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.

At near light speed, there can only be a low frequency of exchange forces in
any direction, otherwise the exchange forces, strong, weak, em, would have to move faster than c.
The binding between particles is reduced. This would also mean less motion by molecules, i.e. less thermal energy, as
viewed by an external observer.

 

[Billy T]

At near light speed, there can only be a low frequency of exchange forces in
any direction, otherwise the exchange forces, strong, weak, em, would have to move faster than c.
The binding between particles is reduced. This would also mean less motion by molecules, i.e. less thermal energy, as viewed by an external observer.

I think this is totally false. If it were true, then inside a sealed room with some simple chemistry you could determine your speed.

Part I made bold of your post especially false and silly, as it implies that electrolysis of H2O would take less energy in faster moving frames so you could define the "absolute rest frame" as the one requiring the most energy to break the chemical bonds. - even MacM knows that is silly.

 

[MacM]

I still think MacM and James are debating a fictitious point.
The molecules of the fuse are not moving in the box. Each maintain the
same distance from the charge until they disappear in combustion. The burn
line is just a sequence of burn events, like the 'wave' the fans do at a sports event, or the wave on water.
The form moves, but nothing material is moving across the surface. It's not a condition for addition of velocities. Wouldn't the perpendicular x-y frame have the
same td factors as the MM experiment, gamma (g) for y, g^2 for x?

I think you and I agree that the detonations are physically simultaneous.

But I believe the point you are missing is that SR by invoking the velocity addition formula has the flame move at a greater velocity than the fuse in the direction of motion; hence causes one detonation to occur before the other from the grond observers view.

It is my position that that shows critical error in SR as a physical theory and relagates it in part at least to being predictiions of "Illusions of Motion" and not physical reality.

James sees no problem with that because that is what is predicted by the theory and asserts that is the reality.

So according to James R it is OK to have two different realities.

I do not. I have ONE reality and ONE "Perception" based on an illusion of moton OR artifically created artifact of a poorely constructed mathematical description of reality called Special Relativity.

 

[MacM]

Don't bother. That is no good. It won't prove anything. You need to quote ME to show that I have distorted your POV.

You can always find some jerk to join you in disputing standard SR.

Read my lips asshole. Stop skimming. You are being directed to MY post in a formal public debate where I state my view is that mass contracts but space doesnot.


Now so as to not have it come up later and be posted by you as being different or a change in my view I have already said and I believe space does contract but not in accordance with SR.

I believe that space is a function of energy and that mass is nothing more than compacted space and that is why E = mc^2 to me "suggests" a density correspondance between space to mass.

In that view mass contracts according to Lorentz but space would contract by 1.1E-17 as much as predicted by Lorentz. So I normally just ignore it in these discussions.

Now that numerical value is merely a hunch and not some formally developed ratio but implies the trend of my thoughts. Sso I don't want a lot of crap about show your work prove 1.1E-17, etc.

 

[MacM]

I think this is totally false. If it were true, then inside a sealed room with some simple chemistry you could determine your speed.

Part I made bold of your post especially false and silly, as it implies that electrolysis of H2O would take less energy in faster moving frames so you could define the "absolute rest frame" as the one requiring the least energy to break the chemical bonds. - even MacM knows that is silly.

I say try it you might like it -

 

[MacM]

Billy T,

This is a one time only offer to bury the hatchet so that we may move on to more important issues.

I conceed that since SR does not discuss contraction of space vs contraction of mass but only predicts length contraction, I frequently say I reject lenght contraction.

But that is in the realm of a discussion where it is being argued that distance between city "A" & city "B" contracted due to the motion of the observer. It is because SR and others are calling spatial contraction length contraction.

But at the same time I frequently have qualified my use of contraction in that context to "Spatial Contraction". The problem is James R and others jump all over that (as you have as well) bitching about me making up new physics terms.

But the absolute truth is I have always and freqeuntly have said mass contracts but space does not. But when I say that I'm only referring to the contraction predicted by SR because as I have pointed out just above and many times before I believe space does contract but at a mere fraction of the rate predicted by SR.

Now you have grounds to claim I said what you say I said but you must also acknowledge that you have extrapolated the language from one post into a realm completely different without knowing or ignoring my actual views. You took my comments about spatial contraction and applied them to mass.

Now if you accept my white flag "ANSWER MY QUESTIONS:

1 - DOES A MOVING OBSERVER BASED ON HIS ONLY PHYSICS EVIDENCE CONCLUDE HE IS TRAVELING FASTER THAN A RESTING OBSERVER SAYS HE IS OR WOULD HE CONCLUDE HE TRAVELED LESS DISTANCE?

2 - DOES A RESTING OBSERVER BASED ON THE ONLY PHYSICS EVIDENCE HE HAS CONCLUDE THE TRAVELING OBSERVER WENT LESS DISTANCE, THAN HE MEASURED HIMSELF, OR DOES HE CONCLUDE THE TRAVELING OBSERVERS CLOCK IS BROKEN (DILATED)?

3 - DOES EITHER OBSERVER HAVE ANY BASIS TO CONCLUDE THE TRAVELING OBSERVER WENT LESS DISTANCE?

 

[Billy T]

HI MacM

Thanks for the One Time Offer. I will try to accept it as I actually like you. I only try to keep you* from leading persons not yet very knowledgeable about physic astray. I bet even you will agree, as you have done so, that before disputing standard POV, one must first study it.

Like you, I am a crackpot too in the cognitive science area. I spent a year on sabbatical leave from JHU's Applied Physic Lab, late in my professional carrier, in the cognitive science department of Johns Hopkins University as a visiting professor, and about 10 years total reading the literature before firmly concluding the standard POV about perception is totally wrong. It does not "emerge" as the result of many stages of neural processing of the sensorial neural impulses, but is achieved by a Real Time Simulation of the sensed world that takes place mainly in the parietal brain.

It is the middle of the night for me - just finished one sleep cycle and got up to change "least" to "most" in my post 904 reply to phyti and saw you offer.

I think I would need to know on your on your questions whether you are speaking of the simple case of two always inertial frames or speaking of the more complex "twin paradox" case in order to reply.

Also you must remove the false assertion (of support it with a quote of my post) you make about what I have said: MacM: "You took my comments about spatial contraction and applied them to mass."

I never even spoke of "mass contraction" so certainly have NOT applied contraction to mass. I have AFAIK only over the years spoken of the increase of mass in the cyclotron.

I can go this far immediately towards meeting you. I will accept that when you say SR's length contraction is false you really mean the SR formula for it is not the correct one. That length contraction does exist, but to a lesser degree than SR calculates.

I of course am NOT accepting that as correct, as think SR is correct since it follows mathematically from two things I think are correct; but I will agree that despite your statement that “length contraction is BS” (as I quoted you saying in post 768) you were just not being precise, but really meant to say length does contract but by a lesser amount than the SR formulae gives.

I will warn you in advance that making, for example, the contraction only half as large does not provide an escape from (2) being in conflict with (1) in my reply to DZion's crazy idea about half liquid / half solid lead mass at speed of light being at absolute zero temperature. So you may want to cancel your offer or modify it.


I'll go back to bed now for my 2nd sleep cycle.

-----------------------
*Not only you. I am the self appointed "Sheriff of Nonsense" for simple physics at sciforums. "Simple physics" as there are a dozen or so active here that know more modern / complex mathematical physic, such as GR, that I do not. Why I have in several threads jumped on DZion, Metatron, etc. and my post 904 calling phyti's post 903 ideas silly.

 

[MacM]

HI MacM

Thanks for the One Time Offer. I will try to accept it as I actually like you.

Nor do I get undue pleasure calling othesr names but I do not just sit back and let others smear my name, especially when they are using false basis. I hope you understand now that your claim to proving my view wrong with trespect to your atomic temperature posts were in error. Because my view includes contraction of mass.

I only try to keep you* from leading persons not yet very knowledgeable about physic astray.

You leap before you look. That is when I point out uniqque issues like there is no evidence for spatial contraction for a moving observer where the only physics data available for the traveler and for the resting observer are distance traveled and time accumulated.

For the traveler the known distance still matches his measured distance, he does not detect any change in his time standard and absent anyother physical input MUST conclude he traveled faster. For the resting observer he sees the same distance being traveled but in a longer time and concludes a slower velocity.

If the two observers compare notes and consider the physics evidence BOTH will conclude that the travelers clock ran slow. NEITHER will conclude he traveled less distance.

Now this isn't just my view it is physics facts. I'm just pointing them out. Further I point out that I am not saying relative velocity is asymmetrical because it isn't. Relative velocity IS symmetrical.

But what is important here is that the fact relative velocity IS symmetrical shows it is an absolute view of relative velocity and not the view of observers in the physical event.

So once again another example of SR relying on an absolute function to declare everything is relative.

I bet even you will agree, as you have done so, that before disputing standard POV, one must first study it.

Certainly but your saying this here implies I have not. That would be mis-leading.

Like you, I am a crackpot too

Speak for yourself. I'm a pragmatic realist not a crackpot.

I think I would need to know on your on your questions whether you are speaking of the simple case of two always inertial frames or speaking of the more complex "twin paradox" case in order to reply.

Speaking in general but keep in mind that to be able to compare clocks they would have to have been synchronized before the recorded trip and further that the traveled course is a common rest frame.

Also you must remove the false assertion (of support it with a quote of my post) you make about what I have said: MacM: "You took my comments about spatial contraction and applied them to mass."

I never even spoke of "mass contraction" so certainly have NOT applied contraction to mass. I have AFAIK only over the years spoken of the increase of mass in the cyclotron.

I was referring to you assertion that you were proving my view wrong by the ds/dt comment regrding temperature; which is contraction of mass.

I will accept your claim to have not understood my comments about length contraction are all strictly spatial contraction because I don't refer to length contraction of mass but refer to dimensional contraction.

I may depending in a specific discussion refer to length contraction of a rod, etc but that still is not advocating contraction of space.

I can go this far immediately towards meeting you. I will accept that when you say SR's length contraction is false you really mean the SR formula for it is not the correct one. That length contraction does exist, but to a lesser degree than SR calculates.

I do believe spatial length contraction occurs but to a FAR lesser degree than advocated by SR. Perhaps as little as 0.000,000,000,000,000,0111 times SR's gamma predicts.

I of course am NOT accepting that as correct, as think SR is correct since it follows mathematically from two things I think are correct; but I will agree that despite your statement that “length contraction is BS” (as I quoted you saying in post 768) you were just not being precise, but really meant to say length does contract but by a lesser amount than the SR formulae gives.

I hope you understand it would be virtually impossible to fully qualify every response in a physics discussion. I would be repeating complete key elements of my views for every post.

When discussing SR's length contraction saying it doesn't occur or calling it BS is a complete and proper response and need not be qualified as to what contraction might otherwise exist.

I will warn you in advance that making, for example, the contraction only half as large does not provide an escape from (2) being in conflict with (1) in my reply to DZion's crazy idea about half liquid / half solid lead mass at speed of light being at absolute zero temperature. So you may want to cancel your offer or modify it.

No I agree with you temperature does not change. My comments were based on the fact that you were relying on SR's contraction. In the case of mass contraction SR's gamma seems correct hence your point was valid but wrongfully based.

In the future I will give a one time clarification for when you have misrepresented my view or distorted my issue, then I may turn up the heat -

Waiting for your confirmation regarding what observers conclude based on nothing but physical evidence.

"A" is traveling observer
"B" is resting observer

"A" concludes
--------------
Distance changed?
Velocity higher?
Clock wrong?

"B" concludes
------------------
Distance changed?
Velocity higher?
Clock wrong?

"A" & "B" after comparing notes conclude
------------------
Distance changed?
Velocity higher?
Clock wrong?

Believe me this is a good exercise for you in realistic theory and sound physics.

 

[Billy T]

I'll try to get to rest of this post of yours later. This first part has four points, all needing reply and that is all I have time for now.

(1)Nor do I get undue pleasure calling othesr names but I do not just sit back and (2)let others smear my name, especially when they (3)are using false basis. (4)I hope you understand now that your claim to proving my view wrong with trespect to your atomic temperature posts were in error. Because my view includes contraction of mass. ...

(1) Then don't call others insulting names. I never do.

(2) As (1) proves, I have NEVER insulted you. In fact have several times said you are unusually clever and ingenious (in your experimental approach to your unique POV on gravity and in your construction of scenarios).

(3) I do not agree that the basic for my attacks on your POV, not you, are false. I think your POV is false, often illogical and self contradictory. The most current example this is in this very post's point (4). Your point (4) is both false and illogical. So I will discuss it in more detail:

(4) For benefit of new comers, I imagined a mass of lead, in thermal equilibrium with half liquid and half solid, i.e. at temperature T, the melting point of lead.

I then considered this temperature T in two different frames from a gross POV as "approach (1)." I also considered it for the atomic definition of temperature (related to average kinetic energy of the collection of lead atoms) in the two different frames as "approach (2)."

For my physics to be true, either both consideration approaches must show that T is a constant OR both show that it changes the same way (for example increases) as the frame it is considered in changes. If the physical theory used in the analysis in the two different approaches leads to (1) showing that T is constant, independent of the frame it is considered in, AND the other approach (2) leads to the conclusion that T is greater in the faster of two moving frames, then one can safely conclude that physics theory used in the consideration is false as it is not even self consistent.

That "It is self contradictory." result follows from applying MacM's version of SR to the temperature of this half liquid / half solid mass of lead. - I.e. MacM's version of SR produces a self contradiction as I now (again) show:

Approach (1): It is not possible for the mass of lead to be all solid (temperature less than T) in one frame and at the same time to be all liquid (temperature greater than T) in any other frame. For ALL FRAMES the mass of lead is half liquid and half solid. If this were not the case it could be gold in one frame and tin in another etc. or any other crazy variation you want to imagine. A person dead in one frame cannot be eating dinner in another, at the same time (merely due to shifting the frame he is now considered from) etc.

Approach (1) SUMMARY: the lead is at the melting point temperature, T, of lead in ALL FRAMES.

Approach (2): The temperature is related to the RANDOM speed of the individual atoms, so I only consider one atom to see if its RANDOM speed changes as the frame it is considered in is changed. In passing I note that of course its total speed will change by V the velocity of the one frame wrt to the other, but the random speed does not change directly by adding a constant speed to all lead atoms. There are however changes in the distance traveled, ds, in a fixed amount of time, dt. MacM agrees to this also.

MacM agrees that time dilation is real, i.e. that dt is contracted by the factor standard SR computes (assuming he does not reverse his prior positions on this to now escape the self contradiction I am now proving). This standard factor is called "gamma," I think, but if not the name does not matter, and for convenience, I will call it "G."

MacM also agrees that ds is contracted, but by less than G* (he asserts standard SR over estimates the true contraction) so I will call MacM's space (or length? - MacM, I think, makes a distinction) "g." As my notations suggests, g < G.

Now I will indicate the very small distance the atom being considered travels in time in tiny time interval dt in one frame as ds' and in the other as ds" and do the same for the time intervals: I.e. dt' and dt"

Likewise I indicate the speed of the particle in the two frames as v' and v" or from the just defined symbols: v' = ds'/dt' and v" = ds" / dt"

In standard SR we have ds" = ds'/ G and dt" = dt'/G
In MacM's SR we have ds" = ds'/ g and dt" = dt'/G

Thus in Standard SR, the speeds of the particle in the two frames are:

v" = ds" / dt" = (ds'/G) / (dt'/ G) = ds'/ dt' = v' or in words: The Random speed of the particle considered does NOT change as the frame it is considered in is changed. As this is true for any and all lead particles I could have considered, the temperature does not change when approach (2) is applied and standard SR is the theory used.

Now let’s apply MacM's version of SR (or his version of contraction, if he does not like it called a "version of SR."):

v" = ds" / dt" = (ds'/g) / (dt'/ G) = (ds'/ dt') = v' (G/g) but (G/g) > 1 so v" > v' or in words: The Random speed of the particle considered DOES change as the frame it is considered in is changed. As this is true for any and all lead particles I could have considered, the temperature DOES change when approach (2) is applied and MacM's SR is the theory used.


Approach (2) SUMMARY:

With standard SR theory: There is no change in the temperature with approach (2) This is the same result as when approach (1) was used.

So standard SR theory is free of self contradiction.

With MacM's SR theory: There is a change in the temperature in approach (2). I.e. approach (2) predicts the temperature will be higher by the square of (G/g) in the faster of the two frames. This is NOT the same result as when approach (1) was used.

So MacM's SR has a self contradiction and is false.

*

{Post 908} … I believe space does contract but at a mere fraction of the rate predicted by SR. ...

--------------------
I apologize to the reader for being so detailed. Most (including MacM , I bet.) saw where I was going without all this detail. But if MacM wants to reply with a logical argument instead of his usual "That is BS." or "That is garbage." he can now tell SPECIFICALLY where my error is.

 

[MacM]

I'll try to get to rest of this post of yours later. This first part has four points, all needing reply and that is all I have time for now.

(1) Then don't call others insulting names. I never do.

Then you and I have a different definition of insulting. I take being called a crank, crackpot, ignorant, stupid, silly, believer in fantasyland physics, etc, etc., insulting.

I don't call people names because they believe inSR. I call them names when they call me names for not believing in SR.

(2) As (1) proves, I have NEVER insulted you. In fact have several times said you are unusually clever and ingenious (in your experimental approach to your unique POV on gravity and in your construction of scenarios).

I'll not waste time going back at this point but you have frequently refered to me as a crank, silly, stupid, etc. If you claim not then I will post specific link to some of those times.

(3) I do not agree that the basic for my attacks on your POV, not you, are false. I think your POV is false, often illogical and self contradictory. The most current example this is in this very post's point (4). Your point (4) is both false and illogical. So I will discuss it in more detail:

I will await your response to see where you are in error.

(4) For benefit of new comers, I imagined a mass of lead, in thermal equilibrium with half liquid and half solid, i.e. at temperature T, the melting point of lead.

I then considered this temperature T in two different frames from a gross POV as "approach (1)." I also considered it for the atomic definition of temperature (related to average kinetic energy of the collection of lead atoms) in the two different frames as "approach (2)."

For my physics to be true, either both consideration approaches must show that T is a constant OR both show that it changes the same way (for example increases) as the frame it is considered in changes. If the physical theory used in the analysis in the two different approaches leads to (1) showing that T is constant, independent of the frame it is considered in, AND the other approach (2) leads to the conclusion that T is greater in the faster of two moving frames, then one can safely conclude that physics theory used in the consideration is false as it is not even self consistent.

That "It is self contradictory." result follows from applying MacM's version of SR to the temperature of this half liquid / half solid mass of lead. - I.e. MacM's version of SR produces a self contradiction as I now (again) show:

God damn it Billy T. I just explained to you several times this statement by you is absolutely false. Your arguement was that I didn't believe in length contraction and then because temperature is based on motion or ds/dt changes with velocity. That if t dilates and s doesn't contract temperature would change and that therefore my view was self contridictory.

But your re-posting this nonsense now and not clearly note that it was not a correct version of my view leaves others to believe it is true.

I posted and proved that my view INCLUDES CONTRACTION of MASS DIMENSIONS and hence temperature in my view does NOT change with velocity.

I do not appreciate your continued misrepresentation of my views or your posting purported proofs which are false.

Approach (1): It is not possible for the mass of lead to be all solid (temperature less than T) in one frame and at the same time to be all liquid (temperature greater than T) in any other frame. For ALL FRAMES the mass of lead is half liquid and half solid. If this were not the case it could be gold in one frame and tin in another etc. or any other crazy variation you want to imagine. A person dead in one frame cannot be eating dinner in another, at the same time (merely due to shifting the frame he is now considered from) etc.

Approach (1) SUMMARY: the lead is at the melting point temperature, T, of lead in ALL FRAMES.

Approach (2): The temperature is related to the RANDOM speed of the individual atoms, so I only consider one atom to see if its RANDOM speed changes as the frame it is considered in is changed. In passing I note that of course its total speed will change by V the velocity of the one frame wrt to the other, but the random speed does not change directly by adding a constant speed to all lead atoms. There are however changes in the distance traveled, ds, in a fixed amount of time, dt. MacM agrees to this also.

I do not accept your wording here. I do not accept "changes in distance traveled". That sounds far to much like spatial contraction.

My view is that the various energetic couplings which change with energy change due to absolute velocity and that changes the spatial dimension of the mass. Only the coupling seperations change but space itself did not contract.

MacM agrees that time dilation is real, i.e. that dt is contracted by the factor standard SR computes (assuming he does not reverse his prior positions on this to now escape the self contradiction I am now proving). This standard factor is called "gamma," I think, but if not the name does not matter, and for convenience, I will call it "G."

MacM also agrees that ds is contracted, but by less than G* (he asserts standard SR over estimates the true contraction) so I will call MacM's space (or length? - MacM, I think, makes a distinction) "g." As my notations suggests, g < G.

Now I will indicate the very small distance the atom being considered travels in time in tiny time interval dt in one frame as ds' and in the other as ds" and do the same for the time intervals: I.e. dt' and dt"

Likewise I indicate the speed of the particle in the two frames as v' and v" or from the just defined symbols: v' = ds'/dt' and v" = ds" / dt"

In standard SR we have ds" = ds'/ G and dt" = dt'/G
In MacM's SR we have ds" = ds'/ g and dt" = dt'/G

Thus in Standard SR, the speeds of the particle in the two frames are:

v" = ds" / dt" = (ds'/G) / (dt'/ G) = ds'/ dt' = v' or in words: The Random speed of the particle considered does NOT change as the frame it is considered in is changed. As this is true for any and all lead particles I could have considered, the temperature does not change when approach (2) is applied and standard SR is the theory used.

Now let’s apply MacM's version of SR (or his version of contraction, if he does not like it called a "version of SR."):

v" = ds" / dt" = (ds'/g) / (dt'/ G) = (ds'/ dt') = v' (G/g) but (G/g) > 1 so v" > v' or in words: The Random speed of the particle considered DOES change as the frame it is considered in is changed. As this is true for any and all lead particles I could have considered, the temperature DOES change when approach (2) is applied and MacM's SR is the theory used.


Approach (2) SUMMARY:

With standard SR theory: There is no change in the temperature with approach (2) This is the same result as when approach (1) was used.

So standard SR theory is free of self contradiction.

With MacM's SR theory: There is a change in the temperature in approach (2). I.e. approach (2) predicts the temperature will be higher by the square of (G/g) in the faster of the two frames. This is NOT the same result as when approach (1) was used.

So MacM's SR has a self contradiction and is false.

*
--------------------
I apologize to the reader for being so detailed. Most (including MacM , I bet.) saw where I was going without all this detail. But if MacM wants to reply with a logical argument instead of his usual "That is BS." or "That is garbage." he can now tell SPECIFICALLY where my error is.

I JUST DELETED A RATHER HARSH NAME CALLING REPLY BECAUSE I REALISED I SAID I WOULD GIVE YOU (1) OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT YOUR FALSE POSTS BEFORE I CALL YOU NAMES. THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY

Now for the record folks my view includes dimensional change of mass or matter with velocity in complete agreement with special relativity.

Hence in my view temperature will not change with velocity as he attempts to make you believe.

Therefore this whole lengthy, boiling lead, overly complex, and far to long scenario, is nothing more than deliberate confusion about what he is talking about since if you are like me you will only skim it, not read it, or not read it at all, but perhaps see his false summary claims of proof about it.

I think given the fact that you can see where he was not only told but where I posted a 55 year old paper I wrote; plus a 3 year old public formal debate I had with a high energy particle physicist, wherein I discuss my views on length contraction and clearly state I believe in dimensional change of mass but not spatial contraction according to special relativity.

That is the volume occupied by mass in space shrinks but space did not contract. Only the energetic couplings binding molecules and atoms together change reducing the seperation in space but the space between them did not contract.

Mark the distance in space as a,b,c,d etc and a massmay reduce from occupying a - d down to a - b but the distance of a - d in space remains the same.

Then you can see that BIlly T is not interested in being honest and having a discussion about physics but still wants to try and mitigate my view using nothing but fabricated lies and false selfserving claims.

If you can see my point it is time to tell him you see it and he should get around to actually discussing physics and stop producing this BS.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I think given the fact that you can see where he was not only told but where I posted a 55 year old paper I wrote;

So in more than half a century you've gotten nowhere and you're reduced to whining about SR on internet forums. I'd say that pretty much demonstrates you've failed utterly. Shame you squandered so much time you could have spent more constructively.

 

[MacM]

So in more than half a century you've gotten nowhere and you're reduced to whining about SR on internet forums. I'd say that pretty much demonstrates you've failed utterly. Shame you squandered so much time you could have spent more constructively.

The fact is you don't know what I've done in my life and I had better physical things to achieve rather than play with developing physics. None of which addresses the issues raised.

Now that I'm semi-retired and ill with time on my hands I intend to push the truth.

Lets start now. Perhaps you would care to answer the following unless you fear the truth because it might be embarassing to your pet theory:

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

REAL PHYSICS SCENARIO:

Two observers at common rest. They have constructed a PHYSICS test course in their solar system. It is a measured distance with kilometer markers along the entire course.

They have never heard of Special Relativity.

The course is 1.08E12m ( 1 light hour long ), plus an acceleration zone before the start of the marked course.

"A" will be the traveling observer and "B" is resting observer

"A" flies out to the end of the acceleration zone which has been computed to give him a velocity of 0.6c when he reaches the start of the marked course.

"A" accelerates and goes inertial at the beginning of the course. He instantly sets his clock to t=0 and sends a light signal to "B" that
he has started the test. That signal will take 1 hour to reach "B".

When "B" receives the start signal from "A", since he knows the distance and velocity of light, he knows to preset his clock to1 hour since the test started. That is the equivelent of "A" & "B" settng their clocks t=0 at the same time.

When "A" flies past "B" both stop their clocks and compute velocity according to their data.

"A" will have recorded he traversed 1.08E9Km in 0.53333 hours (32 minutes)

"B" will have recorded he took 1 hour to go the same distance.

Neither observer can detect a change in distance or time standards during the test. The only data they have is known distance (which remains the same in all frames as measured) and the accumulated time on their clocks.

That is the physcial reality.

Therefore:

"A" concludes
--------------
Distance changed?
Velocity higher?
Clock wrong?

"B" concludes
------------------
Distance changed?
Velocity higher?
Clock wrong?

"A" & "B" after comparing notes conclude
------------------
Distance changed?
Velocity higher?
Clock wrong?

 

[Billy T]

... I'll not waste time going back at this point but you have frequently referred to me as a crank, silly, stupid, etc. If you claim not then I will post specific link to some of those times.

I do so claim, so please do. I probably have called your SR theory "silly" as that is one of my favorite terms (second only to "nonsense" but I cannot recall calling your theory "nonsense" as that is for obviously silly POVs. I have on occasion said you were a "crackpot" – in fact did so very recently in post 909 as follows:

HI MacM ... Like you, I am a crackpot too in the cognitive science area. I spent a year on sabbatical leave from JHU's Applied Physic Lab, late in my professional carrier, in the cognitive science department of Johns Hopkins University as a visiting professor, and about 10 years total reading the literature before firmly concluding the standard POV about perception is totally wrong. It does not "emerge" as the result of many stages of neural processing of the sensorial neural impulses, but is achieved by a Real Time Simulation of the sensed world that takes place mainly in the parietal brain. ...

I also recall some years ago saying something like: “I too am a crackpot and proud of it…” also stating something like: “The crackpot who presents a well reasoned alternative is performing a valuable service, even if his POV is false as it make the supporters of the convention POV think about the basis of their POV. Clearly, you should take no offense when I praise your type of crackpot and call myself one.

I do challenge you to make good on your offer to find a post, cite it by thread and number, where I have insulted you instead of commented on your POV.
In contrast you have called me an asshole, etc. and some years ago a: “bag full of shit.” – I rather liked that one as it is literally true at times.

I will await your response to see where you are in error.

Don’t hold your breath. I do not know of any error I made. I made my post 911 response to point (4) very detailed, step-by step, with explicit discussion of each step so it would be easy for YOU to point out ANY ERROR.

… Your argument was that I didn't believe in length contraction and then because temperature is based on motion or ds/dt changes with velocity.

Yes that WAS my understanding of you position about contraction because of your following post:

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

and more recently re-confirmed that space does not contract, while attempting a “duck and weave” switch to speak of mass contraction on 18 Aug 2009, yesterday, here:

{post 893}... I have said several times that mass contracts but space does not....

Thus, prior to your post 908, which was made less than 4 hours after this post 893, you have unequivocally stated that NEITHER space NOR length contracts; but less than 4 hours later, you changed your stated position to accept that there was some contraction, but not as much as the standard SR formula calculated as you stated in this post:

{Post 908, made less than 4 hours after 893} … I have always and frequently have said mass contracts but space does not. But when I say that I'm only referring to the contraction predicted by SR because as I have pointed out just above and many times before I believe space does contract but at a mere fraction of the rate predicted by SR.

Excuse me, if I doubt that you have many times before stated there was contraction. I challenge you to find even one, of the many times before statements which is old enough so that it cannot now be edited. I have quoted two post in which you deny ANY contraction, unequivocally, AND HAVE READ SEVERAL OTHERS but never what you claim you have posted many times before.

Because you changed your stated POV about length contraction, I changed my argument about your inconsistence to have your SR making some contraction of the distance of travel, the length ds. I.e. in the post 911 edition, I allowed for the length ds to be contracted by a factor “g” instead of the larger standard SR contraction of “G” - With g < G assumed to be the case in my restatement of the proof of your theory’s self contradiction and re-posted the proof in great detail as post 911

{post 912}….I posted and proved that my view INCLUDES CONTRACTION of MASS DIMENSIONS and hence temperature in my view does NOT change with velocity.

Yes very recently in post 908 you did admit to some contraction of the length ds. I am not interested in your POV about mass’s volume as I make no reference to that in my proof that your POV is self-contradictory. (Frankly what is mass and inertia is a great mystery to me so I never say anything about it. I read that the Higgs boson is the heart of the story, but have no real understanding of that.)

{post 912}…I do not appreciate your continued misrepresentation of my views or your posting purported proofs which are false.

I try not to misrepresent your POV. For example, immediately after you changed from the “total absence of ANY length or space contraction” POV you stated in posts 768, 893 (and others) and yesterday in 908 to assert now in post 912 that there was some contraction, but less than Standard SR’s contraction, I change what I said was your POV here:

{post 909}HI MacM...I will accept that when you say SR's length contraction is false you really mean the SR formula for it is not the correct one. That length contraction does exist, but to a lesser degree than SR calculates.
I of course am NOT accepting that as correct, as think SR is correct since it follows mathematically from two things I think are correct; but I will agree that despite your statement that “length contraction is BS” (as I quoted you saying in post 768) you were just not being precise, but really meant to say length does contract but by a lesser amount than the SR formulae gives. ...

I do not accept your wording here. I do not accept "changes in distance traveled". That sounds far too much like spatial contraction.

Make up your mind about the reality of length contraction!! The length “ds” was defined to be the distance that lead atom traveled during the time interval dt. You agree that dt is contracted and in post 912 that some contraction of length does occur, you just that it is not as much as SR calculates. You seem here to be flip-flopping back to the earlier POV in which no contraction of length occurs – changing your POV even within this one post 912!

{post 912}…My view is that the various energetic couplings which change with energy change due to absolute velocity and that changes the spatial dimension of the mass. Only the coupling separations change but space itself did not contract.

I could just ignore this as what happens, if anything, to the volume of mass or charge is of no concern to the proof I gave. I note, however this is nonsense, until you can clearly tell what the absolute velocity is or how it would be measured. – I.e. for me, and 99+ % of people who even had high school physics, this is a meaningless statement as all the postulated effects on mass and charge are stated to be due to []absolute velocity[/b]!!!

…YOU PRETENDED TO ACCEPT BUT THEN AFTER I EXPLAINED AND PROVED TO YOU THAT YOU WERE MISREPRESENTING MY VIEW SINCE MY VIEW INCLUDES CONTRACTON OF MASS ( LESS SPACING BETWEEN ATOMS OR MOLECULES - YOUR ds in ds/dt - AND THEREFORE YOUR ASSERTION ABOUT TEMPERATURE CHANGING IN MY VIEW PROVES CONTRIDICTION WAS FALSE, YOU NOW DELIBERATELY REPEAT THAT FALSE CHARGE AND ONCE AGAIN CLAIM A FALSE PROOF AGAINST ME.

NO! I did not pretend to accept. I said you would need to tell me which case you wanted me to respond to (The twin paradox or when neither frame has any acceleration ever. Here that is again (unlike you, I like to document my statements):

{ post 909}…I would need to know on your on your questions whether you are speaking of the simple case of two always inertial frames or speaking of the more complex "twin paradox" case in order to reply.

If you are now saying that there is no contraction of the distance traveled by the lead atom, ds, during the time interval dt, then forget about my revised proof with a contraction factor of g. You are even more wrong, self-contradictory if that is possible as the speed v” = (ds’/G) / (ds’/ 1) = v’/G i.e. instead of having a conflict between approaches (1) and (2) of (G/g) your internal conflict reverts to the original LARGER conflict of post 911, the summary of which was:

{post 911}SUMMARY:
With standard SR theory: There is no change in the temperature with approach (2) This is the same result as when approach (1) was used.

So standard SR theory is free of self contradiction.

With MacM's SR theory: There is a change in the temperature in approach (2). I.e. approach (2) predicts the temperature will be higher by the square of (G/g) in the faster of the two frames. This is NOT the same result as when approach (1) was used.

So MacM's SR has a self contradiction and is false.

In conclusion, I again note that NOT ONCE have you documented your assertions about me misquoting you, etc. by giving the post in which I did so.

ALL of my post making staments about what you have said are DOCUMENTED by giving the post number and quoting your text.

Why should any one believe your ASSERTIONS? WHEN YOU NEVER DO ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THEM?

 

[James R]

Yet another scenario? Ok then...

REAL PHYSICS SCENARIO:

Two observers at common rest. They have constructed a PHYSICS test course in their solar system. It is a measured distance with kilometer markers along the entire course.

They have never heard of Special Relativity.

The course is 1.08E12m ( 1 light hour long ), plus an acceleration zone before the start of the marked course.

"A" will be the traveling observer and "B" is resting observer

"A" flies out to the end of the acceleration zone which has been computed to give him a velocity of 0.6c when he reaches the start of the marked course.

"A" accelerates and goes inertial at the beginning of the course. He instantly sets his clock to t=0 and sends a light signal to "B" that
he has started the test. That signal will take 1 hour to reach "B".

When "B" receives the start signal from "A", since he knows the distance and velocity of light, he knows to preset his clock to1 hour since the test started. That is the equivelent of "A" & "B" settng their clocks t=0 at the same time.

When "A" flies past "B" both stop their clocks and compute velocity according to their data.

"A" will have recorded he traversed 1.08E9Km in 0.53333 hours (32 minutes)

No. A will have recorded that he travelled 0.864E9 km, since the distance measured by A is not 1 light-hour but 0.8 light-hours. In A's reference frame the markers, which are stationary in B's frame but moving in A's frame, are 0.8 km apart, whereas in B's frame they are 1 km apart.

Also, A's time for the trip is:

t = s/v = (0.8 light-hours)/(0.6 light-hours per hour) = 1.33 hours = 80 minutes.

"B" will have recorded he took 1 hour to go the same distance.

No. B says that A travels 1 light-hour at a speed of 0.6 light hours per hour which gives 1.66 hours for the trip, or 100 minutes.

Neither observer can detect a change in distance or time standards during the test.

Sure they can. As he accelerates, A measures the distance between the kilometre markers contracting.

Also, if A watches B through a telescope during the test, A sees B's clock as running slow. If B watches A through a telescope, B sees A's clock running slow.

The only data they have is known distance (which remains the same in all frames as measured) and the accumulated time on their clocks.

No. The number of distance markers remains the same in all frames, but not the distance between them, due to length contraction.

As for accumulated times, I note that the trip does not start simultaneously in both frames, although it ends simultaneously in both frames as A passes B at the end of the course.

Therefore:

"A" concludes
--------------
Distance changed? Yes, the course distance was shorter according to A.
Velocity higher? Yes. The markers moved at 0.6c according to A.
Clock wrong? Nobody's clock is wrong.

"B" concludes
------------------
Distance changed? No. The markers remained at rest relative to B.
Velocity higher? No. The markers remained at rest relative to B.
Clock wrong? Nobody's clock is wrong.

"A" & "B" after comparing notes conclude
------------------
Distance changed? Yes, the distance contracted for A since the markers were moving relative to him.
Velocity higher? The velocity of the markers relative to A was higher than the velocity of the markers relative to B. The speed of A relative to B was the same as the speed of B relative to A.
Clock wrong? Nobody's clock was wrong, although the trip times were different for the two observers.

 

[MacM]

I do so claim, so please do. I probably have called your SR theory "silly" as that is one of my favorite terms (second only to "nonsense" but I cannot recall calling your theory "nonsense" as that is for obviously silly POVs. I have on occasion said you were a "crackpot" – in fact did so very recently in post 909 as follows:
I also recall some years ago saying something like: “I too am a crackpot and proud of it…” also stating something like: “The crackpot who presents a well reasoned alternative is performing a valuable service, even if his POV is false as it make the supporters of the convention POV think about the basis of their POV. Clearly, you should take no offense when I praise your type of crackpot and call myself one.

I do challenge you to make good on your offer to find a post, cite it by thread and number, where I have insulted you instead of commented on your POV.
In contrast you have called me an asshole, etc. and some years ago a: “bag full of shit.” – I rather liked that one as it is literally true at times.
Don’t hold your breath. I do not know of any error I made. I made my post 911 response to point (4) very detailed, step-by step, with explicit discussion of each step so it would be easy for YOU to point out ANY ERROR.
Yes that WAS my understanding of you position about contraction because of your following post:
and more recently re-confirmed that space does not contract, while attempting a “duck and weave” switch to speak of mass contraction on 18 Aug 2009, yesterday, here: Thus, prior to your post 908, which was made less than 4 hours after this post 893, you have unequivocally stated that NEITHER space NOR length contracts; but less than 4 hours later, you changed your stated position to accept that there was some contraction, but not as much as the standard SR formula calculated as you stated in this post: Excuse me, if I doubt that you have many times before stated there was contraction. I challenge you to find even one, of the many times before statements which is old enough so that it cannot now be edited. I have quoted two post in which you deny ANY contraction, unequivocally, AND HAVE READ SEVERAL OTHERS but never what you claim you have posted many times before.

Because you changed your stated POV about length contraction, I changed my argument about your inconsistence to have your SR making some contraction of the distance of travel, the length ds. I.e. in the post 911 edition, I allowed for the length ds to be contracted by a factor “g” instead of the larger standard SR contraction of “G” - With g < G assumed to be the case in my restatement of the proof of your theory’s self contradiction and re-posted the proof in great detail as post 911 Yes very recently in post 908 you did admit to some contraction of the length ds. I am not interested in your POV about mass’s volume as I make no reference to that in my proof that your POV is self-contradictory. (Frankly what is mass and inertia is a great mystery to me so I never say anything about it. I read that the Higgs boson is the heart of the story, but have no real understanding of that.) I try not to misrepresent your POV. For example, immediately after you changed from the “total absence of ANY length or space contraction” POV you stated in posts 768, 893 (and others) and yesterday in 908 to assert now in post 912 that there was some contraction, but less than Standard SR’s contraction, I change what I said was your POV here: Make up your mind about the reality of length contraction!! The length “ds” was defined to be the distance that lead atom traveled during the time interval dt. You agree that dt is contracted and in post 912 that some contraction of length does occur, you just that it is not as much as SR calculates. You seem here to be flip-flopping back to the earlier POV in which no contraction of length occurs – changing your POV even within this one post 912!
I could just ignore this as what happens, if anything, to the volume of mass or charge is of no concern to the proof I gave. I note, however this is nonsense, until you can clearly tell what the absolute velocity is or how it would be measured. – I.e. for me, and 99+ % of people who even had high school physics, this is a meaningless statement as all the postulated effects on mass and charge are stated to be due to []absolute velocity[/b]!!!NO! I did not pretend to accept. I said you would need to tell me which case you wanted me to respond to (The twin paradox or when neither frame has any acceleration ever. Here that is again (unlike you, I like to document my statements): If you are now saying that there is no contraction of the distance traveled by the lead atom, ds, during the time interval dt, then forget about my revised proof with a contraction factor of g. You are even more wrong, self-contradictory if that is possible as the speed v” = (ds’/G) / (ds’/ 1) = v’/G i.e. instead of having a conflict between approaches (1) and (2) of (G/g) your internal conflict reverts to the original LARGER conflict of post 911, the summary of which was:


In conclusion, I again note that NOT ONCE have you documented your assertions about me misquoting you, etc. by giving the post in which I did so.

ALL of my post making staments about what you have said are DOCUMENTED by giving the post number and quoting your text.

Why should any one believe your ASSERTIONS? WHEN YOU NEVER DO ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THEM?

Like I said Billy T. I'm not wasting my time chasing you around. You have once again ignored the fact that my original manuscript over 50 years old, backed by a public document 3 years old, which is closed such that I cannot have altered it, where I had a formal debate with a high energy physicist on this very subjject -PROVES that my view includes mass dimensional contraction which eliminates your purported proof and voids your claim.

That is not a DUCK & WEAVE it is a correction of a lie you continue to post even after you have been clearly notified of your error.

I find it difficult to believe you did not know that in the first place because I have stated that view hundreds of times on this forum and in threads where you were a participant.

The simple fact seems to be you generate some BS lie and then stick with it regardless of the truth. That makes anything you say meaningless. I gave a detailed explanation of why I don't qualify every post but when referring to SR's length contraction simply state it is BS and does not occur.

Now you can retract your claim or I aim to see what I can do about your deliberate continuation of lying.

 

[MacM]

Yet another scenario? Ok then...

Actually a more relavistic version of my car scenario. It seems some people have a difficult time imagining the analogy.

No. A will have recorded that he travelled 0.864E9 km, since the distance measured by A is not 1 light-hour but 0.8 light-hours. In A's reference frame the markers, which are stationary in B's frame but moving in A's frame, are 0.8 km apart, whereas in B's frame they are 1 km apart.

I really wish you would learn to read. They know nothing about relativity. The traveling observers meters stick still says every km is 1,000 meters long.

I'll stop here and give you a chance to recover from your error. You are trying to impose SR conditions not in evidence physically to these observers.

I wrote this is based on physical evidence and emperical data showing the affect of accumulated time for a traveling clock.

Neither observer can sense, detect or measure a change in distance nor tick rate of his clock. That isn't just a stipulation I'm making it is stating physical facts.

Now address the physics based on evidence and stop reciting SR.

 

[James R]

I really wish you would learn to read. They know nothing about relativity. The traveling observers meters stick still says every km is 1,000 meters long.

No. If the traveller measures the distance between the kilometre markers with his own metre stick, he will find that the markers are only 0.8 km apart. It doesn't matter whether he knows relativity of not. The laws of physics apply whether you know or believe in them or not. If you think differently, try believing really hard that gravity doesn't exist while you jump off a building and see how you go with that.

Neither observer can sense, detect or measure a change in distance nor tick rate of his clock.

Half right. Neither observer can detect any change to the tick rate of his own clock. If he observes the other's clock, he will definitely notice a discrepancy. As for distance, if he measures moving distances with his stationary rulers then he will measure a different distance than if he measures a stationary distance.

That isn't just a stipulation I'm making it is stating physical facts.

Me too. Only my physical facts are right and yours are MacM fantasynonsenserubbishPhysics.

 

[Billy T]

...The simple fact seems to be you generate some BS lie...

No, Not lying - only quoting your flip flopping posts. For examples of your flip flopping:

{post 768}...physical length contraction is BS.

{post 893}...I have said several times that mass contracts but space does not.

[post 908}…I have always and frequently have said mass contracts but space does not. But when I say that I'm only referring to the contraction predicted by SR because as I have pointed out just above and many times before I believe space does contract but at a mere fraction of the rate predicted by SR.

Which is it? You flip flop very quickly now as post 908 is made less than four hours after post 893!

ALL of my post making statements about your flip flopping etc. are DOCUMENTED by giving the post number and quoting your text as I do again above. Why should anyone believe your ASSERTIONS about me lying WHEN YOU NEVER DO ANY DOCUMENTATION OF THEM ? You just ASSERT false things about me. For example:

{post 912}…you have frequently referred to me as a crank, silly, stupid, etc. If you claim not then I will post specific link to some of those times.

Despite your above PROMISE to quote my lying, insulting, posts, I again note that NOT ONCE have you given any post in which I did so.

For a recent DEMONSTRATION that MacM’s SR is self contradictory, see post 911, especially the discussion of item (4).
MacM has no reply except to call this proof of inconsistency “BS” and “garbage.” If that were the case, then he could easily show some specific error in post 911.

SUMMARY:
MacM never DOCUMENTS his assertions, only asserts that I post BS, lie, and insult him, 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).
However, sometimes he flip flops to state exactly the opposite. (Even in one paragraph of post 908, MacM contradicts himself! as is DOCUMENTED above.)

(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 separation speeds between two frames as in post 746.)

(4) Claims with ZERO evidence that radioactive half life is a function of speed.
MacM makes this silly claim 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 that were true, that would make half live a meaningless concept yet it works well to date the age of ancient bones etc..

(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 CALCULATED from quantum physics THEORY. –I.e. MacM is tacitly assuming that even THEORY MUST CHANGE for physicists in the moving frame!!! - How silly / illogical can MacM get? Is there a limit?