Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

MacM:You have graphics that demonstrate that you think show that Lorentz contraction cannot be physically real? Please post them and I'll take a look.

Thank you for making it clear to all that you have not read what I post. These diagrams have been posted 3 - 4 times recently in this thread.

No wonder your post are so far off topic.

The Earth clock ticks faster than the spaceship clock in the Earth frame. The spaceship clock ticks faster than the Earth clock in the spaceship frame. That's during the periods of inertial motion, of course.

Which is precisley what I have said for (5) years now is not of interst since tht vanishes once relative velocity ends. The ONLY issue is the REAL (meaning permanent) change in clocks which emperical data shows toONY+LY be the accelerated frame and never the reting frame that ACTUALLY dilates. That eliminates relative velocity perse from being a cause since both share the relative velocity and only one is physically affected.

I don't really know why I bother repeating these facts because you have delibertely ignored them for years.

You agree with this, do you? And you think it took me "several years" to reach this point? I thought you didn't agree with this.

OMG: See above comment.

Yes. That's what SR says. Has it taken you several years to realise this simple point?

I really hope you realize you cannot get away with this. I haven't JUST realized anything. It has been fully discussed many times over many years. Our difference is you want to claim it is reality and I point out it is "Illusion of Motion" and vanishes once relative velocity ends.

Acceleration has nothing to do with time dilation in SR. What are you talking about?[/quote]

So you keep repeating but also keep ignoringvthat the only way to "Switch Frames" is to accelerate. I use that standard to differentiate the resting clock from one that moves. You use the Switched Frame standard. They are in fact one and the same you just don't like using the real physical cause which requires acceleration or an absolute change in inertial velocity.

Maybe it is about time you defined the term "real physical change" properly.

And maybe it is time you actually read wihat I write and stop distroring my view and making up nonsense objections such as "acceleration has noting to do with time dilation". I challenge you to give us a cause of frame switching which does not require acceleration/deceleration; which causes an absolute inertial velocity change to a rest frame reference.

If you say that measured clock rates and distances of moving objects are all "illusions of motion", then you presumably define "real physical change" only as things that happen in the rest frame of an object. Is that correct? If so, then you'll never learn anything about relativity, which is about comparing measurements made in two different frames of reference.

I don't have to learn what I already know. YOU have to learn what you refuse to even think about and that is that the ONLY true tme dilation is what causes the traveling twin to be younger when he returns to his brothers frame (or when his brother quickly joins him in his frame as he passes back by on the retun pass.

This is NOT a frame dependant function as you generally like to cliam. I have shown before that the resting twin can accelrate quickly to join his spcae going brother as he returns without stopping and the space goer still is younger. So forget claiming it is frame dependant.

It is not it is acceleartion induced veloicty dependant and not mere relative veloicty dependant which is the only thing about relati ity you seem to know and which is absolutely vworthlesd kknowledge.

Yes, I deny that.

Then you are a fool.

I still don't know what your "frame switching" is, exactly. The term is not used in any relativity textbook I've ever read. I assume that the concept is not required when studying relativity.

Incredable. I'll be back with some searches showing justhow many times "Frame Switching" has been used by you and others here. This is just plain a deliberate out right lie on your part and it is going to bite you right in the ass.

Find? I don't have to look far for that. Just sit on a satellite and you're in a frame where the satellite is at rest.

Right so now do the rest and post your math. Make the ECI frame have velocity. Go ahead smart ass don't quit half way through. You aren't finished.

You haven't responded to my challenge.

Posted challenge by MacM"“ Go ahead find a set of frames that causes the ECI to have velocity and the orbiting clock is at rest. ”

You mean you pointed me to some links where I learned more about GPS for myself. I can't recall ever learning anything from you.

Doesn't cut it bubba. I made sttements you challenged and I link you to information showing I was correct. Your feable attempt here to make others think that I linked you to GPS information not knowing it myself is rather dumb on your part.

Nonsense. Special relativity is just general relativity in flat spacetime. If you're using general relativity with a Minkowski metric, all the results you get are the same as in special relativity.

Sorry. You still haven't learned to read. I noted that mathematically your statemnt is correct but physically it is not and that comes from Albert Einstein himself. So now you want to disagree with Einstein? Good luck.

Or can you tell us just where in the universe we have no gravity.? Because that is the only place where SR can even be mathematically valid. Every where in the universe SR is only approximately valid and only then if you pick and choose which prediction you want to apply so as to eliminate reciprocity from any physical reality consideraton.

No he didn't. Read your own quote'

The velocity of light is invariant in all inertial frames. Provided we do experiments in a volume of space where the variation in spacetime curvature is small, special relativity, the approximation of a flat spacetime is always valid, and hence so is special relativity. If that was not true, then Newton, Galileo and many others would have had a lot more trouble discovering the laws of physics.

You always want to be technical with me I'll be technical with you Special Relativity has no place in the universe where it is valid. - PERIOD. It only approximates correctly in some applications. - PERIOD.

Even Einstein understood this. Read his words - take off your blinders.

No. On the contrary, general relativity expanded the scope of special relativity by extending the principle of equivalence.

False General Relativity returned to prior forms of relativity and actually states Special Relatrivity should never have been formulated. It is based on the concept of light invariance which General Relativity proves is not true and light trveling through space is subjected to all sorts of gravitational tugs Black Holes, galaxies, large planets, etc, etc. There is no place in the universe where gravity doesn't exist hence no place where light is invariant.

Virtually all testing has been done in earth's or sun's gravitational field or that of planets or galaxies.

On the contrary, the half life of the muon is well known experimentally, as and the processes of production of muons in the upper atmosphere is well understood. Effects of the earth's magnetic field are irrelevant (or, at least, you have not made any attempt to establish relevance), and the variation of gravity over a distance of a few tens of kilometres of the Earth's surface is small enough that special relativity is a good approximation.

Finally some crack in the ceiling. You are starting to tell just a little truth finally. Now if I can just get you to admit that hte measured ansitrophy of cosmic muons also is better computed by the velocity to the CMB than to the earth we would be getting close to talking real physics.

There is no such thing as absolute motion.

So you like to keep saying but in complete disregard of the usage. I have not and would not declare a velocity as being "absolute' But I have and do say acceleration induces an "Absolute" change in inertial velocity.

The inertial velocities can be relative but the change is absolute being based on a fixed formulas. i.e.: F=ma or a = F/m and v = at. These expressions ARE absolute and their affect IS absolute.

You just don't like showing that mere Relative velocity does'tn cause real time dilation but absolute inertial veloicty change does.

What twaddle.

Posted by MacM: “ Einstein saw the problem but rather than admit a mistake he just marginalized or mitigated SRT and let jerks like you sing it's praises and his genius. ”

What twaddle.

Didn't expect you to much like pointing out this fact but your attitude doesn't change the fact that Einstein clearly said Special relativity can only be applied where gravity can be ignored.

Read for what it really means is Special Relativty is invalid everywhere but may be approxiately useful some places.

Glad to see we are making some progress here. I'm sure others are learning.

So you don't have to look back one whole page where this was posted more than once and several time pages before that here are the diagrams.

******************************************************************* *****
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.

***************************************************
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8


Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches emperical data.

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

Here is what happens when you attempt to deny physical clock time dilation. Read and weep.

CASE 2:
.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%.

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B........................ ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3........... ..4

Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours.

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

CASE 3:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both clocks ticking in synch.
Speed = 60 Mph. Time is in hours.

..........................................Resting Twin.............................................. ...................
Distance.A ..........................480 Miles...........B................................. ...................A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8
.................................................. ....................!
...................................Traveling Twin...............!
Distance.A.........................B.............. ...........A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4
Distance ......................240 Miles....................!

If the speed and clock tick rates are the same then all clocks must agree when I return and
stop my clock at 4 hours. Therefore the assertion that the resting observer has you travel
480 miles and take 8 hours is not possible since I return in 4 hours. Further if clocks do not
stay in synch and the traveling clock has dilated such that the resting observer accumulates
8 hours when you return then you have case #1 and distance cannot change. But that at least matches emperical data. Your POV does not.


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

SUMMARY:
The only case that fits emperical data and is physically possible is #1 for clocks to dilate and
distance to remain the same. Seems MacM has heard this view before.

 

[MacM]

FOR OTHER READERS:

James R's assertions that he has never heard of the terms or that they (Frame Switching and Acceleration) are inappropriate in SR time dilation calculations is just not credible.

Jame R #980:I still don't know what your "frame switching" is, exactly. The term is not used in any relativity textbook I've ever read. I assume that the concept is not required when studying relativity."

He may think he has qualified this to CYA his post but he is either a deliberate liar or a fraud and are not as educated as he claims to be because the term is absolutely common and I'm sure he has read numerous books other than "Text". Further I plan to reasearch several texts and show he is in fact a liar.

I could fill this forum since virtually every Googled reference refers to "Frame Switching and Acceleration" as being the method of breaking the inherent reciprocity symmetry of the realtive velocity view. They are the only thing that keeps SR from breaking down and becoming just plain silly as a physical theory.

But what they do not acknowledge is when they do consider Frame Switching (Acceleration) they are now considering who has achieved "Actual" velocity to a rest frame and not merely relative velocity between frames.

That is technically they are no longer doing SR but are using components of LR by creating a preferred frame.

I have seen several inductory text books on the subject and they ALL use the same language. Now it remains to be seen if that continues in higher mathematicasl version of the study but that doesn't excuse his attempt to lie to you.

Because you do not start at the top you start at the introduction and work your way up. So he clearly has been exposed to the languae describing time dilation for the twins in those terms - If he infact is formally educated. At times he does make one wonder about that too.

******************************************************
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Resolution of the paradox in special relativity

The standard textbook approach treats the twin paradox as a straightforward application of special relativity. Here the Earth and the ship are not in a symmetrical relationship: the ship has a "turnaround" in which it undergoes non-inertial motion, while the Earth has no such turnaround. Since there is no symmetry, it is not paradoxical if one twin is younger than the other. Nevertheless it is still useful to show that special relativity is self-consistent, and how the calculation is done from the standpoint of the traveling twin.

Special relativity does not claim that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers at rest in inertial reference frames are equivalent. But the space ship jumps frames (accelerates) when it performs a U-turn. In contrast, the twin who stays home remains in the same inertial frame for the whole duration of his brother's flight. No accelerating or decelerating forces apply to the homebound twin.

There are indeed not two but three relevant inertial frames: the one in which the stay-at-home twin remains at rest, the one in which the traveling twin is at rest on his outward trip, and the one in which he is at rest on his way home. It is during the acceleration at the U-turn that the traveling twin switches frames. That is when he must adjust his calculated age of the twin at rest.

In special relativity there is no concept of absolute present. A present is defined as a set of events that are simultaneous from the point of view of a given observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference (see relativity of simultaneity), so switching between frames requires an adjustment in the definition of the present. If one imagines a present as a (three-dimensional) simultaneity plane in Minkowski space, then switching frames results in changing the inclination of the plane.

MacM's Notes:

1 - color=red]"non-inertial motion"[/color] is physics speak for acceleration.

2 -"jumps frames (accelerates)" is comensurate with "Switch Frames" and as indicated is a function of acceleration.

3 - "accelerating or decelerating forces " - Gee I wonder if they might be talking about my old stand by F = ma an v = at.

4 - . "It is during the acceleration at the U-turn that the traveling twin switches frames.

5 - switching between frames

6 - switching frames

***********************************************
http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Twin_paradox/
Twin paradox

It turns out that the travelling twin's expectation is mistaken: special relativity does not say that all observers are equivalent, only that all observers in inertial frames are equivalent, i.e. observers which don't undergo acceleration. But the travelling twin most certainly accelerated at least once during his journey and his is therefore not an inertial frame. The twin on Earth rests in an inertial frame for the whole duration of the flight (if we ignore the comparatively small acceleration resulting from Earth's mass and movement) and he is therefore able to distinguish himself from the travelling twin.

It is during the U-turn when, from the point of view of the traveling twin, the twin at rest ages very quickly. This is a purely artificial effect caused by the change in the definition of simultaneity when changing frames. Here's why.

In special relativity there is no concept of absolute present. A present is defined as a set of events that are simultaneous from the point of view of a given observer. The notion of simultaneity depends on the frame of reference, so[color=red[]b] switching between frames[/b][/color] requires an adjustment in the notion of the present. If one imagines a present as a (three-dimensional) plane in Minkowski space, switching frames results in changing the inclination of the plane. The tilting plane of the U-turning twin quickly sweeps the lifeline of the resting twin. Suddenly the resting twin gains years of calculated age in the reckonings of the traveling twin. Note that this has nothing to do with the observed age. Since the twins are separated by a large distance, they can only observe images from the past, not from "the present."

In resolving the paradox, it is sometimes claimed that special relativity cannot be applied to accelerating bodies, and that general relativity has to be used, but this is not correct. For instance, the age of both the Earthbound and travelling twin can be correctly calculated by integrating the spacetime interval (or proper time) over the spacetime paths they make in any inertial frame (these paths are known as the twin's worldlines). Similar methods can be used to calculate the relativistic behaviour of an accelerating spacecraft (see relativistic rocket). SR only becomes inapplicable when the effect of gravity is non-negligible, in which case general relativity must be used.

MacM's Notes:

1 - "travelling twin most certainly accelerated" Seems considering who accelerated is fairly common in such cases.

2 - "changing frames". - Seems acceleration causes changing frames (comensurate with switching frames don't you think?

3 - switching between frames

4 - switching frames

5 - accelerating bodies, and that general relativity has to be used, but this is not correct..........................can be correctly calculated by integrating - Another point I have made several times and was met with negative replies from the "Educated" people on this board.

****************************************************
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_distance.html

The Twin Paradox: The Distance Dependence Objection

With our "standard example" (see the Introduction), Stella's accounting of Terence's ageing runs like this: one-seventh of a year on the Outbound Leg, one-seventh of a year on the Inbound Leg, and the rest --- 14 years minus two-sevenths --- during the turnaround. You may recall she does the turnaround in a day, according to Terence, or about 15 hours by her own clock. (Let's just say 15, and hang the minutes; the exact figure won't matter.)

Say Stella takes a longer journey, spending 2 years on both the Inbound and Outbound Legs, for a total of 4 years of her time, or 28 years according to Terence. But she still takes the same 15 hours for the turnaround.

So when Stella and Terence have their joyous reunion, Terence is 28 years older (plus a day). This time Stella's accounting of Terence's ageing runs like so: Terence aged two-sevenths years on the Outbound Leg, ditto for the Inbound Leg, and so Terence must have aged over 27 years during the turnaround.

Summing up: according to Stella, Terence ages around 13 years 7 months on the turnaround for the shorter trip, but over 27 years on the turnaround for the longer trip. Yet Stella says the two turnarounds took the same time. And Terence agrees.

The resolutions are similar to those given for the Time Gap Objection. How much Terence ages during the turnaround is not something you can directly observe, according to SR. The Doppler Shift Analysis focuses on what Terence and Stella actually see through their telescopes, which avoids the difficulty. Stella's accounting is just that: accounting, dependent on particular reference frames, and in particular on switching from one inertial reference frame to another. No wonder that accounting tricks can produce surprising results. See the Time Gap Objection for more details.

MacM's Notes: I've seen you quote Baez as an authority.

1 - in particular on switching from one inertial reference frame to another. - Seems everyone but you knows about "Switching Frames" and "Acceleration" as being key to the resolution of the paradox created by a mere relative velocity view which introduces reciprocity into the reality physics of time dilation.

Have a nice day liar, distorter, fabricator.

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

Glad I took on this project. Here is the first book (for undergraduates) which not only mentions acceleration but mentions needing to account for acceleration histories. Something I have been ridiculed for having claimed was necessary. HEAR THAT BILLY T?

http://books.google.com/books?id=J4...esult&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=&f=false

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

 

[James R]

MacM:

So you keep repeating but also keep ignoringvthat the only way to "Switch Frames" is to accelerate.

Nonsense. As I sit here in my chair, my motion can be observed from an infinite number of different reference frames. We can view my motion from my rest frame, in which case I'm going at zero kilometres per hour. Or, we can view my motion from a point half way between the Earth and the Sun, from which we find that I'm going at about 1000 km/hr. Or, we can view my motion from the Sun, in which case I am going at about 30 km per second. Or we can view it from the galactic centre, in which case I'm moving at 200 km/s. All we need to do to "switch frames" is choose a different point of observation. I don't need to accelerate at all.

I challenge you to give us a cause of frame switching which does not require acceleration/deceleration...

Done. See above.

...which causes an absolute inertial velocity change to a rest frame reference.

There are no absolute frames of reference.

YOU have to learn what you refuse to even think about and that is that the ONLY true tme dilation is what causes the traveling twin to be younger when he returns to his brothers frame (or when his brother quickly joins him in his frame as he passes back by on the retun pass.

Ok then. Teach me how to calculate the relative ages of the twins. Here's a scenario:

Twin A remains on Earth. Twin B heads off at 0.6c to a destination 10 light-years away (as measured by Twin A). On reaching the destination, Twin B instantaneously turns around and returns at the same speed to Earth.

Question: How much time has elapsed on each Twin's clock? What is the age difference between them on Twin B's return?

Show me, MacM, how you calculate this. I assume you will need to make some assumptions about the acceleration parts of the trip, because according to you they are the only parts that can cause the final age difference. Make sure you explain to me all the necessary assumptions I need to make to solve this problem.

Remember: you can't use the Lorentz tranformations during the constant velocity parts of the trip, because according to you the constant velocity parts of the trip can't affect the final age difference. Constant velocity parts of the trip involve "reciprocity", which according to you can never result in "real physical change". These parts are just "illusion of motion".

Show me how to calculate the "real physical change" of age, MacM. Make sure you explain all the mathematics you use to solve this problem, and all assumptions you need to make.

I await your solution in eager anticipation. Let's see if MacM fantasyphysics can come up with the goods when given a real problem.

Find? I don't have to look far for that. Just sit on a satellite and you're in a frame where the satellite is at rest.

Right so now do the rest and post your math. Make the ECI frame have velocity.

No math is required. All I have to do to make the ECI frame have velocity is to fly past the Earth in a spaceship, for example.

Special relativity is just general relativity in flat spacetime. If you're using general relativity with a Minkowski metric, all the results you get are the same as in special relativity.

Sorry. You still haven't learned to read. I noted that mathematically your statemnt is correct but physically it is not and that comes from Albert Einstein himself. So now you want to disagree with Einstein? Good luck.

1. My statement was not mathematical.
2. How can my statement be correct "mathematically" but not "physically"? The mathematics is a description of the physical situation. The physics are prior to any maths. If I get the physics wrong, then I'd have to be extremely lucky to have the maths give me the right answers, wouldn't I?
3. Einstein at no time ever said the maths of GR was right but the physics was wrong.
4. Einstein at no time ever said the maths of SR was right but the physics was wrong.
5. Einstein at no time ever said that SR is not a subset of GR.

General Relativity returned to prior forms of relati ity and actually states SpecialRelatrivity should never have been formulated.

Where do you dream up this stuff? Wake up, MacM, and start getting real. You're hopelessly, irrevocably, confused.

It is based on the concept of light invariance which General Relativty proves is not true and light trveling through space is subjected to all sorts of gravitational tugs Black Holes, galaxies, large planets, etc, etc.

There are no "tugs" on light at all, ever.

There is no place in the universe where gravity doesn't exist hence no palce where light is invariant.

The speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.

I have not and would not declare a velocity as being "absolute' But I have and do say acceleration induces an "Absolute" change in inertial velocity.

Acceleration is defined to be the rate of change of velocity, so of course acceleration produces a change in velocity - that's what acceleration means. Your use of the word "absolute" in this context is superfluous and misleading. You're using that word in a different way than you do when you talk about "absolute velocity" and hoping you can sneak it through. It doesn't work like that. I'm smarter than you. You won't catch me out.

The inertial velocities can be relative but the change is absolute being based on a fixed formulas. i.e.: F=ma or a = F/m and v = at. These expressions ARE absolute and their affect IS absolute.

No. Consider v=at. The full formula is v = u + at, where u is the initial velocity and v is the final velocity. If we define the change in velocity as v - u, we have change in velocity = at. There's nothing absolute about that. For example, if object X accelerates at 1 metre per second per second for 5 seconds, its change in velocity will be 5 metres per second. But this says nothing about whether its velocity changed from 0 to 5 metres per second, or from 155 to 160 metres per second or from 1789465 to 1789470 metres per second.

You really need to start thinking before posting stupid statements that things are absolute.

Didn't expect you to much like pointing out this fact but your attitude doesn't change the fact that Einstein clearly said Special relativity can only be applied where gravity can be ignored.

I have no issue with that. It is a correct statement. As a practical matter, there are many many many situations in which gravity can be ignored.

************************************************** ***************** *****
Here are several possibilities done graphically. I will discuss each below the traveling twin cases.

************************************************** *
CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours.

.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8


Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

.................................................. .........Traveling Twin.............................................. .
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. ........A
Time...... 0..........................1...................... ....2..........................3.................. ........4
A dilated clock matches emperical data.

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

Here is what happens when you attempt to deny physical clock time dilation. Read and weep.

CASE 2:
.................................................. ...........Resting Twin..............................................
Distance A................................................. ....B............................................. .......A
Time...... 0............1............2............3.......... ..4............5............6............7........ ....8

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%.

...............................Traveling Twin..................
Distance A........................B........................ ..A
Time...... 0............1...........2............3........... ..4

Bogus results in that it is alleged that while clocks ticked the same the twin arrives back in half
the time. If clocks were in synch the resting twin could never get to 8 hours.

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

In all of these diagrams you do not specify whose rulers are being used or whose clocks. This is what lets you down and leads to incorrect conclusions. Please try again, and this time specify whether distances in each diagram are being measured by A's rulers or B's rulers, and whether time is being measured on A's clock or B's clock.

Once you've provided that information, there might just be enough information to point out your latest series of errors.

************************************************** ****
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

Resolution of the paradox in special relativity

[snip]

It is not my fault if the use of language by the author of that wikipedia article was a little sloppy in his or her use of language. If you like, I can point out where the language is misleading.

I should mention, of course, that most people who study relativity are not confused by this kind of explanation, because they can understand the mathematics and they know what a reference frame is. In your case, you have a particular disability in that you have never understood what a reference frame is, so slightly bad wording confuses the heck out of you.

I really just don't think you're cut out for understanding relativity. You ought to give up. Your brain is clearly not built for it.

As for Baez's article:

How much Terence ages during the turnaround is not something you can directly observe, according to SR. The Doppler Shift Analysis focuses on what Terence and Stella actually see through their telescopes, which avoids the difficulty. Stella's accounting is just that: accounting, dependent on particular reference frames, and in particular on switching from one inertial reference frame to another. No wonder that accounting tricks can produce surprising results.

I will be most interested in seeing your analysis of the situation I gave earlier, in light of the first sentence of this quote. Because MacM says that the ENTIRE age difference is due to the accelerations. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see how the aging is done in the turnaround etc. according to MacM fantasyphysics.

 

[MacM]

MacM:Nonsense. As I sit here in my chair, my motion can be observed from an infinite number of different reference frames. We can view my motion from my rest frame, in which case I'm going at zero kilometres per hour. Or, we can view my motion from a point half way between the Earth and the Sun, from which we find that I'm going at about 1000 km/hr. Or, we can view my motion from the Sun, in which case I am going at about 30 km per second. Or we can view it from the galactic centre, in which case I'm moving at 200 km/s. All we need to do to "switch frames" is choose a different point of observation. I don't need to accelerate at all.[/qyuote]

Yes and any calculation you do from those vantage points will NOT produce correct time dialtion calculations. The ONLY valid frames are the initial rest frame and the accelerted new inertial frame.


Once agin you choose to ignore the fact I am not ineterested in the fantasyland SR reciprocity BS but only the time dilation emperical data suported frames which show time dilation once there is NO continued relative velocity.

So once agin you waste our time and attempt to confuse the issue.

Done. See above.

Done see above. Those examples tell you nothing about true time dilation because you have no common rest frame from which to synchronize.

There are no absolute frames of reference.

So you like to keep sayng but your word doesn't make it so. Further you should learn english or learn to read:

Posted by MacM:“ ...which causes an absolute inertial velocity change to a rest frame reference. ”

I said nothing about an absolute rest or velocity frame. I spoke of an absolute change in velocity. That is an entirely different subject and perfectly acceptable modern physics.

WEBSTER:

Absolute - 5) not doubted, actual, real

physics - n. something that is absolute

FYI: The CHANGE in inertial velocity IS absolute.

Ok then. Teach me how to calculate the relative ages of the twins. Here's a scenario:

Twin A remains on Earth. Twin B heads off at 0.6c to a destination 10 light-years away (as measured by Twin A). On reaching the destination, Twin B instantaneously turns around and returns at the same speed to Earth.

Question: How much time has elapsed on each Twin's clock? What is the age difference between them on Twin B's return?

A = 33.333 years.
B = 26.666 years.
Delta = 6.666 years.

What was supposed to be hard about that?

Show me, MacM, how you calculate this. I assume you will need to make some assumptions about the acceleration parts of the trip,

No assumptions required. Had you not made instantaneous turn arounds, etc one would need to have integrated the acceleration periods to get the dilation affects during those periods of changing velocities .

because according to you they are the only parts that can cause the final age difference. Make sure you explain to me all the necessary assumptions I need to make to solve this problem.

See you still waste our time and are telling lies about my views. I do NOT claim acceleration causes time dilation. Acceleration causes "Actual" velocity change and velocity relative to the rest frame causes time dilation.

Remember: you can't use the Lorentz tranformations during the constant velocity parts of the trip, because according to you the constant velocity parts of the trip can't affect the final age difference. Constant velocity parts of the trip involve "reciprocity", which according to you can never result in "real physical change". These parts are just "illusion of motion".

You really don't get it. During inertial relative velocity there are two components.

1 - "Actual" velocity to a rest frame which is causing time dilation.

2 - "Relative" velocity between clocks which is symmetrical does not cause time dilation.

When the resting clock remains at the common rest frame then and ONLY then does the relative velocity to that clock compute the correct time dilation and it is for the accelearted frame ONLY and never the resting frame which shared in the common relative velocity.

Now this becomes absolutely clear when you have both move from the common rest frame.

If they are co-moving with equal velocity there is no relative velocity and no time dilation between them but they both dilate equally to the common rest frame.

If they happen to be approaching with equal velocity to the common rest frame they have a higher relative velocity to each other according to the velocity addition formula but they still have no time dilation to each other even though SR predicts it but both still have the same time dilaton to the common rest frame.

There by proving that it is NOT relative velocity perse that causes time dilation but the increased inertial velocity due to acceleration from the common rest frame.

Now what is do hard about understanding that. That is what your emperical data shows and supports and does NOT support the mere "Relative velocity view which has reciprocity.

Show me how to calculate the "real physical change" of age, MacM. Make sure you explain all the mathematics you use to solve this problem, and all assumptions you need to make.

I await your solution in eager anticipation. Let's see if MacM fantasyphysics can come up with the goods when given a real problem.

The ONLY problem here is you. My calculations are given above. I need not show my work. If you disagree with the results then say so and show where I missed it. Otherwise acknowledge that I know how to do the math.

No math is required. All I have to do to make the ECI frame have velocity is to fly past the Earth in a spaceship, for example.

You haven't met the challenge. You are to make the ECI have velocity so as to compute time dilation to the resting orbiting clock.

1. My statement was not mathematical.

No but it is ONLY correct mathematically. Mathematically you treat inertial as being a special case in GR but that is not the physical reality.

2. How can my statement be correct "mathematically" but not "physically"?

Simple you ignore physical reality of the universe. GR and SR are different animals based on postulates which don't hold true in both theories.

The mathematics is a description of the physical situation. The physics are prior to any maths. If I get the physics wrong, then I'd have to be extremely lucky to have the maths give me the right answers, wouldn't I?

Yep and you don't.

3. Einstein at no time ever said the maths of GR was right but the physics was wrong.

Nor did I claim he did. I in fact posted HIS quote wherein he stated the invariance of light is only valid in absence of any or gravitational force and since there is no place in the universe where that is true then SR should never have been formulated.

But since it was and since pragmate=ically there are areas where gravity is sufficiently minor that one can apply the SR math then it is still useful but still not based on valid physics.

Further SR's reciprocity is and light invariance are rejected by GR. You can't just ignore tht and pretend all is well in SR fantasyland - it is not.

4. Einstein at no time ever said the maths of SR was right but the physics was wrong.

I have never said he did. I merely posted his quote.

5. Einstein at no time ever said that SR is not a subset of GR.

No he said you can ONLY apply it where you can ignore gravity. He not once said it is valid in gravity and gravity is everywhere. So he properly qualified it's range of utility not validity.

Where do you dream up this stuff? Wake up, MacM, and start getting real. You're hopelessly, irrevocably, confused.

Not me bubba but YOU. Had he first concieved GR I can assure you he would never have claimed SR. Having seen the problems of reciprocity in SR he developed GR but then to save face state you can still use SR but only under limited conditons. That is NOT the same as claiming it is a mathematical subset of GR.

There are no "tugs" on light at all, ever.

Better check with Einstein on that. Of course you want to claim light just folows curved space. I forgot. I come back with some info on this since you apparently don't read.

The speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.

Absolutely False. It is only invariant in absence of gravititational fields which happen to exist every where. Now the local change may be immeasureable but they are still there. As the gravity well changes so does the speed of light.

Acceleration is defined to be the rate of change of velocity, so of course acceleration produces a change in velocity - that's what acceleration means. Your use of the word "absolute" in this context is superfluous and misleading. You're using that word in a different way than you do when you talk about "absolute velocity" and hoping you can sneak it through. It doesn't work like that.

See above. You stand corrected on tthis issue. The change in inertial velocity is absolute. It is based on hard physics conditions F = ma, a = F/m and v = at.

I'm smarter than you. You won't catch me out.

You certainly believe that but like much of the other stuff I pointed out here it just isn't true.

No. Consider v=at. The full formula is v = u + at, where u is the initial velocity and v is the final velocity. If we define the change in velocity as v - u, we have change in velocity = at. There's nothing absolute about that.

Nit picking doesn't alter the facts

For example, if object X accelerates at 1 metre per second per second for 5 seconds, its change in velocity will be 5 metres per second. But this says nothing about whether its velocity changed from 0 to 5 metres per second, or from 155 to 160 metres per second or from 1789465 to 1789470 metres per second.

Correct that is why it is being stated that the "Absolute Change" is 5 m/s and not declaring some absolute velocity universally.

You really need to start thinking before posting stupid statements that things are absolute.

Ditto. You objectons are completely off base since I have not and would not declare a velocity as being absolute. The change in velocity however IS in spite of your false assertion that it is not.

I have no issue with that. It is a correct statement. As a practical matter, there are many many many situations in which gravity can be ignored.

Good because it properly qualifies SR as beig technically invalid but still useful if properly limited which also invalidates the inherent reciprocity in the relative velocity view which GR also prohibits.

In all of these diagrams you do not specify whose rulers are being used or whose clocks. This is what lets you down and leads to incorrect conclusions. Please try again, and this time specify whether distances in each diagram are being measured by A's rulers or B's rulers, and whether time is being measured on A's clock or B's clock.

False. I stipulate i.e. both clocks tick in synch. If they tick in synch (As Billly T tries to imply by saying nothing changes physically ) then that is the results.

If they tick in synch then when one clock reaches 4 hours the other clock is at 4 hours and since according to the length contrction I return in 4 hours there is not possible way for the resting twin to accumulated 8 hours.

Learn to read and think.

Once you've provided that information, there might just be enough information to point out your latest series of errors.

No errors there I'm afraid. All information needed is provided.

It is not my fault if the use of language by the author of that wikipedia article was a little sloppy in his or her use of language. If you like, I can point out where the language is misleading.

Don't bother because you are just making an ass out of yourself. You see I have already accumulated some college text references which also discuss the twin paradox using terms of accelertion, switching frames, jumping frames, and changing frames. ALL meaning the same thing obviously.

I should mention, of course, that most people who study relativity are not confused by this kind of explanation, because they can understand the mathematics and they know what a reference frame is.

You again attempt to circumvent the putting of your foot in your mouth. The simple truth is as one goes deeper into the subject and gets more mathematical there is less verbal description.

HOWEVER, nobody including YOU ever start there everybody including YOU start with introductory texts and work your way up. and until you reach the higher mathematics level they ALL use the terms I have used which you said don't exist in college texts and which you had never seen.

That my friend is not credible. It is simply put just an out right lie.

In your case, you have a particular disability in that you have never understood what a reference frame is, so slightly bad wording confuses the heck out of you.

Pure selfserving horseshit. The fact that you can't address my issues and want to divert to other issues and pretend I have said theings I have not sid, etc is either poor sportsmanship or an indication you lack common sense.

I really just don't think you're cut out for understanding relativity. You ought to give up. Your brain is clearly not built for it.

That is why you can]t address my issues I suppose.

As for Baez's article:

I will be most interested in seeing your analysis of the situation I gave earlier, in light of the first sentence of this quote. Because MacM says that the ENTIRE age difference is due to the accelerations. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see how the aging is done in the turnaround etc. according to MacM fantasyphysics.

Thanks for making my point. See my reply above. You are still after (5) years misrepresenting my views.

How in the hell can you possibly claim to be rebutting them when you don't even know what they are?

 

[James R]

MacM:

More bluster from you with no substance.

MacM:Nonsense. As I sit here in my chair, my motion can be observed from an infinite number of different reference frames. We can view my motion from my rest frame, in which case I'm going at zero kilometres per hour. Or, we can view my motion from a point half way between the Earth and the Sun, from which we find that I'm going at about 1000 km/hr. Or, we can view my motion from the Sun, in which case I am going at about 30 km per second. Or we can view it from the galactic centre, in which case I'm moving at 200 km/s. All we need to do to "switch frames" is choose a different point of observation. I don't need to accelerate at all.

Yes and any calculation you do from those vantage points will NOT produce correct time dialtion calculations.

Your statement is given with no proof. It is worthless rubbish.

I said nothing about an absolute rest or velocity frame. I spoke of an absolute change in velocity.

I commented on that at length in my previous post. Go back and read it.

Ok then. Teach me how to calculate the relative ages of the twins. Here's a scenario:

Twin A remains on Earth. Twin B heads off at 0.6c to a destination 10 light-years away (as measured by Twin A). On reaching the destination, Twin B instantaneously turns around and returns at the same speed to Earth.

Question: How much time has elapsed on each Twin's clock? What is the age difference between them on Twin B's return?

A = 33.333 years.
B = 26.666 years.
Delta = 6.666 years.

What was supposed to be hard about that?

You did not show your working. I therefore assume that you used the theory of relativity, which you claim you do not believe in.

Stop pretending, MacM. You're all bluff and bluster, but when it comes down to it you can't solve any problem of this type without using the theory you say is wrong.

You've been caught out. You have no alternative theory. You're all smoke and mirrors.

You really don't get it. During inertial relative velocity there are two components.

1 - "Actual" velocity to a rest frame which is causing time dilation.

2 - "Relative" velocity between clocks which is symmetrical does not cause time dilation.

This is new from you.

Ok. From now on I'm going to use the symbol VR for "relative velocity" and the symbol VA for actual velocity. Please post the mathematical formulas you use to calculate time dilation and illusion of motion time dilation, so I can see where VR applies and where VA applies.

If they happen to be approaching with equal velocity to the common rest frame they have a higher relative velocity to each other according to the velocity addition formula but they still have no time dilation to each other even though SR predicts it but both still have the same time dilaton to the common rest frame.

This makes no sense. Learn English and get back to me when you're capable of explaining yourself clearly.

Show me how to calculate the "real physical change" of age, MacM. Make sure you explain all the mathematics you use to solve this problem, and all assumptions you need to make.

The ONLY problem here is you. My calculations are given above.

No mathematical calculations appear in your post. Don't tell lies, MacM. Post the details of your working. You have to use relativity, don't you? Why don't you give up and admit you have to use the theory you say is wrong?

Mathematically you treat inertial as being a special case in GR but that is not the physical reality.

Are you now claiming that inertial motion is not a special case? Does inertial motion play no part in MacM fantasyphysics now? Flip flop goes MacM again.

Simple you ignore physical reality of the universe. GR and SR are different animals based on postulates which don't hold true in both theories.

Oh, for god's sake, man. I, and numerous others have told you over and over again that special relativity is a SUBSET of general relativity. Therefore, it is based on exactly the SAME postulates as general relativity. Your fevered imaginings can't alter that simple fact.

Time to stop being stupid, if you can.

3. Einstein at no time ever said the maths of GR was right but the physics was wrong.

Nor did I claim he did. I in fact posted HIS quote wherein he stated the invariance of light is only valid in absence of any or gravitational force and since there is no place in the universe where that is true then SR should never have been formulated.

Ok. Let's accept that you'll never understand the relationship between SR and GR.

Do you accept that GR is a correct theory, then, even if SR is wrong? Yes or no?

Further SR's reciprocity is and light invariance are rejected by GR.

In your dreams.

Had [Einstein] first concieved GR I can assure you he would never have claimed SR.

How many times must it be said? SR is just GR in flat spacetime.

Hence, "claiming GR" is equivalent to "claiming SR" in flat spacetime. SR is built into GR. GR would never have existed if SR hadn't existed first. SR is the starting point for GR.

Talking to you is worse than trying to explain relativity to a 2 year old. You have no idea of the history or of the theory, but you think you know everything. You demonstrate over and over again that your knowledge of the theories you're trying to disprove is essentially zero.

There are no "tugs" on light at all, ever.

Better check with Einstein on that. Of course you want to claim light just folows curved space. I forgot.

You forget most things. If you check with Einstein on that, you might discover that the general theory of relativity is all about curved spacetimes. Look it up and for once in your life try to learn something.

The speed of light is invariant in all inertial frames.

Absolutely False.

Another useless "absolute" statement from MacM. *yawn*

No. Consider v=at. The full formula is v = u + at, where u is the initial velocity and v is the final velocity. If we define the change in velocity as v - u, we have change in velocity = at. There's nothing absolute about that.

Nit picking doesn't alter the facts

On the contrary, there's no nit picking here. Just an insightful and deft demolition of more nonsense from you. You have no response, so you accuse me of nit picking. The fact is, you were caught out in yet another mistake.

Good because it properly qualifies SR as beig technically invalid but still useful if properly limited which also invalidates the inherent reciprocity in the relative velocity view which GR also prohibits.

Another blanket statement from MacM with no argument or justification. "Invalidates the inherent reciprocity blah blah blah". All talk, no justification, no explanation, nothing of any use to anyone. Typical.

In all of these diagrams you do not specify whose rulers are being used or whose clocks. This is what lets you down and leads to incorrect conclusions. Please try again, and this time specify whether distances in each diagram are being measured by A's rulers or B's rulers, and whether time is being measured on A's clock or B's clock.

False. I stipulate i.e. both clocks tick in synch. If they tick in synch (As Billly T tries to imply by saying nothing changes physically ) then that is the results.

I note you are incapable of complying with the simple request to specify whose clocks and rulers are being used. The rest is just useless obfuscation again. You're caught out again, MacM.

Don't bother because you are just making an ass out of yourself. You see I have already accumulated some college text references which also discuss the twin paradox using terms of accelertion, switching frames, jumping frames, and changing frames. ALL meaning the same thing obviously.

Maybe you've been reading the wrong textbooks all these years. Better toss them out and get some decent ones.

More likely, you've just failed to understand anything about the theory you're trying to criticise.

How in the hell can you possibly claim to be rebutting [my views] when you don't even know what they are?

Haven't you managed to explain your views in 5 years?

Have you considered that maybe it is because:

1. You're lousy at writing clearly.
2. Your ideas change from day to day so that you can never tell when you're next going to flip flop.
3. You have no mathematics or solidity to any idea you've ever put forward.
4. Your use of language and terms is different from every working physicist's.
5. Your "theory" is a hodge-podge of inconsistency and mutually contradictory ideas.
6. Real physicists require logical explanations, and you can't provide any.
7. You're living in a fantasyland of your own imagining. You imagine things about Einstein's theories that are incorrect, and you imagine that you are better than Einstein so that your own delusions are superior to physics that has been tried, tested and accepted for 100 years.
8. You really, deep down, believe that relativity is correct, and you can't argue the maths, so you're reduced to arguing that while it is "mathematically correct", it can't be "physically correct". And you're two dumb to see the obvious inconsistency in such a position.

 

[MacM]

MacM:
More bluster from you with no substance.
Your statement is given with no proof. It is worthless rubbish.

Speaking of rubbish. Your responses are completely worthless rubbish. All selfwerving off topic BS.

I commented on that at length in my previous post. Go back and read it.

Yes and I showed yourv comments to be completely flawed.

You did not show your working. I therefore assume that you used the theory of relativity, which you claim you do not believe in.

Dumb ass I used the math needed to answer your questions according to physics in my view which coincide with SR in that case. See you still do not understand my views you run off at the mouth, half read and make up irrelevant crap and argue with your self.

Stop pretending, MacM. You're all bluff and bluster, but when it comes down to it you can't solve any problem of this type without using the theory you say is wrong.

Like I said you still do not understand the view. The twins case is properly resolved by only calculating the traveling twin and the "Relative Veloicty" view of the trveling twin which SR says makes the resting twin have motion and hence younger is false. That is what is wrong with the theory dumb ass.

You've been caught out. You have no alternative theory. You're all smoke and mirrors.

You have no valid answer to the issue that mere relative velocity is not a physical cause for physical affects. And the accelerated frame has physical affects hence the "Absolute" change in inertial velocity is the cause of time dilation NOT mere relative velocity between clocks.

This is new from you.

No but it apparently it is new to you. Which merely confirms what I've said about you for years. You never read wht is written you post off topic BS that is irrelevant or worse just plain stupid and attempt to put it in the mouth of those you oppose. It isn't working this time is it. You are being caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

Ok. From now on I'm going to use the symbol VR for "relative velocity" and the symbol VA for actual velocity. Please post the mathematical formulas you use to calculate time dilation and illusion of motion time dilation, so I can see where VR applies and where VA applies.

Don't be silly. The formula t' = t(1-v^2/c^2)^0.5 is perfectly fine. It just cannot be used between two clocks which have no common rest reference.

If it is you are computing "Perception" since that situation has reciprocity and either can claim to be at rest and the other have velocity. That produces the twin paradox. But to appease you t'=t(1-VR^2/c^2)^0.5 yields un supported percepton predictions.

The correct calculation is use t'=t(1-VA^2/c^2)^0.5 for the accelerted frame (the traveling twin) ONLY to the common rest frame. which in the twins case is the resting twins common rest frame.

If however the twin back on earth gets in a jet and flies around the formula is no longer valid and both twins must use VA to the common earth rest frame and take the differential in their respective time dilations to determine their net time dilation to each other.

This makes no sense. Learn English and get back to me when you're capable of explaining yourself clearly.

Posted by MacM:“ If they happen to be approaching with equal velocity to the common rest frame they have a higher relative velocity to each other according to the velocity addition formula but they still have no time dilation to each other even though SR predicts it but both still have the same time dilaton to the common rest frame (CRF). ”

This is a perfectly good paragraph for any person with average reading comprehension. For your kindergarten skills let me draw you some pictures.

"A"------------>CRF<------------"B"
0.6c.......................................0.6c

"A"<----------0.8824c---------->"B"

No mathematical calculations appear in your post. Don't tell lies, MacM. Post the details of your working. You have to use relativity, don't you? Why don't you give up and admit you have to use the theory you say is wrong?

PLEASE. Don't continue to distort my views. After (5) years I would think you could learn something. I use Lorentz Gamma calculations just like you do but I use them correctly ONLY for the accelerted frame because allthe rest ofSR is just plain bullshit. Not that each cannot see the other dilated, they do, but it is not real time dilation because it vanishes once relative velocity terminates.

Are you now claiming that inertial motion is not a special case? Does inertial motion play no part in MacM fantasyphysics now? Flip flop goes MacM again.

GR is not just about acceleration it involves EEP of gravitational force acceleration and there is no place in the universe where such gravitational fields do not exist, hence inertial is not a mere extension of GR because even under inertial conditions gravity still persists.

Oh, for god's sake, man. I, and numerous others have told you over and over again that special relativity is a SUBSET of general relativity. Therefore, it is based on exactly the SAME postulates as general relativity. Your fevered imaginings can't alter that simple fact.

Time to stop being stupid, if you can.

Interesting just how you can blow off Einstein himself. He just explained to you that GR limits applicability of SR because the invariance postulate doesn't hold because of gravity. GR also prohibits reciprocity. i.e physics are not the same in all frames.

So maybe you shuld try to no being stupid if YOU can.

And you the smart one make the assinine statement here that the postulates hold in both SR and GR. Like I said I have to question your education claims.

Your repeated claims that SR is a subset of GR just proves your ignorance. It does not make it true.

Ok. Let's accept that you'll never understand the relationship between SR and GR.

I seem to understand better than yourself. You are flat incorrect in your above assertions. GR rejects light invariance and physics being the same in all frames.

Do you accept that GR is a correct theory, then, even if SR is wrong? Yes or no?

GR is more correct but not entirely correct. There simply is no singularity for example and just where the physical cut off occurs is not yet known.

In your dreams.

You are the one dreaming. I just posted Einstein's quote and you have the gall to say this.

How many times must it be said? SR is just GR in flat spacetime.

Which does not exist in the universe. Almost flat maybe but never flat and that was what Einstein was trying to tell you but you aren't listening.

Hence, "claiming GR" is equivalent to "claiming SR" in flat spacetime. SR is built into GR. GR would never have existed if SR hadn't existed first. SR is the starting point for GR.

False. SR came first and Einstein saw the shrtcomings and fixed it by developing GR which actually voids SR technically but allows it's continued use under limited conditions as an approximation because however small it might be gravity is still there and space is not flat.

Talking to you is worse than trying to explain relativity to a 2 year old. You have no idea of the history or of the theory, but you think you know everything. You demonstrate over and over again that your knowledge of the theories you're trying to disprove is essentially zero.

And you have proven here that you still are not talking about MY views but your own screwed up version of my views whic are just plain nonsense. I suspect deliberately so otherwise you would be forced to address some embarrasing issues. But as long as you can keep posting this bullshit you think you can waffel your way around them.

I hope you are starting to realize your BS is starting to backfire and you are saying things like above which are in contrast to Einstein's quotes them selves that are making you look pretty damn silly.

You forget most things. If you check with Einstein on that, you might discover that the general theory of relativity is all about curved spacetimes. Look it up and for once in your life try to learn something.

I forgot nothing I mentioned curved space-time remember. What is your point? Other than to have something negative to say.

Another useless "absolute" statement from MacM. *yawn*

Fact. Is there gravity in all inertial frames? YES. Is space-time flat in a grvity field? NO. So my statement stands as technically valid and yours is only pragmatically acceptable under limited conditions as a close approximation.

On the contrary, there's no nit picking here. Just an insightful and deft demolition of more nonsense from you. You have no response, so you accuse me of nit picking. The fact is, you were caught out in yet another mistake.

No mistake what-so-ever. WEBSTER agrees with my use of the term "Absolute" with respect to the "CHANGE" in inertial velocity.

Another blanket statement from MacM with no argument or justification. "Invalidates the inherent reciprocity blah blah blah". All talk, no justification, no explanation, nothing of any use to anyone. Typical.

REALLY. Then please post GR a example of reciprocity where frame "A" is on earth surface and frame "B" is 1,000 miles in space. Where is the reciprocity?

Or give us and example of an accelerting frame wher GR claims it is the resting frame that is accelerating.

Go ahead wise ass. Post your data showing GR supports reciprocity.

I note you are incapable of complying with the simple request to specify whose clocks and rulers are being used. The rest is just useless obfuscation again. You're caught out again, MacM.[p/quote]

No if you fucking read it say in plain english i.e From "A's" view or Traveling Twin, etc. The fact you don't know how to read is not my falult and I am not going to chase you around wasting time to just have you post more misrepresented bullshit.

Maybe you've been reading the wrong textbooks all these years. Better toss them out and get some decent ones.

Speaking of bullshit. I suppose you still want others to believe you started a study of relativity in the highest educational level mathematics books and never had or read any introductory or mid-level college books on the subject. HORESHIT LIAR.

More likely, you've just failed to understand anything about the theory you're trying to criticise.

Speaking of hollow blanket statements. When are you gong to realise you have been shown far to many times that these attacks are baseless and therfeore a waste of your time and mine.

Haven't you managed to explain your views in 5 years?

Explained. Proved and reproved but talking to you is impossible since after (5) years you still think you can delibertly distort what has been said and make silly extrapolations from your distorted versions.

Have you considered that maybe it is because:

1. You're lousy at writing clearly.

I have on occasion expected people to have some common sense and not expect to have to state the obvious but tht doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Above being a perfect example. I state from the resting twin view and then post a chart. You complain you didn't say whos clock and whos ruler. Shsssh!:bugeye:

2. Your ideas change from day to day so that you can never tell when you're next going to flip flop.[/quot]

That is just a flat out lie agin. Since I hve not changed my view in (5) years. Actually 55 yeras as I have proven in another ost to Billy T. So shove it.

3. You have no mathematics or solidity to any idea you've ever put forward.

Really . Now I admit not as much as I would like but if you recall there are (7) pages of calculus in the UniKEF manuscript. Plus several other calculations based on stated assum,ptions but all as suggestions or food for thought not for formal presentation.

But where is your alternative work? Oh I forgot you have none because you cannot think for yourself but can only mimick others or recite what you have been told to memorize.

4. Your use of language and terms is different from every working physicist's.

It would be difficult indeed to differentiate actual velocity from relative velocity if all I used was the term relative velocity. Or relative velocity as used in SR from absolute velocity change which stipulates who has veloicty versus mere relative velocity.

Grow up.

5. Your "theory" is a hodge-podge of inconsistency and mutually contradictory ideas.

Your understanding of my view is completely off point and creates the confusion in your own mind.

6. Real physicists require logical explanations, and you can't provide any.

Provided and proven but to deaf ears, closed minds and ignorant egotistical self-centered people.

7. You're living in a fantasyland of your own imagining. You imagine things about Einstein's theories that are incorrect, and you imagine that you are better than Einstein so that your own delusions are superior to physics that has been tried, tested and accepted for 100 years.

Here we go again. How many test in that 100 yers have been to prove and collected data showing the predicted reciprocity of time dilation in SR is emperically supported. Go ahead post one set of data.

Or how many such tests measured lorentz spatial length contracton .. Go ahead post your data. Don't dar post cosmic muons because it has been shown that muon life is better calculated agains motion to the CMB than to earth because of the ansitrophy of muon data to erth; also it is not a controlled test enviorn,ent and you have not proof of what affect blasting through the erth's grvity and magnetic fields might have on the muons as well. that is there are numerous uncontrolled enfluences in this cycles other than veloicty plus I assume they would be slowing down and hence are not even inertial. Hmmmmm. Thought SR only applied to inertial velocities and in absence of gravity.

The last I knew earth had gravity. Or at least that is what I seem to recall. :bugeye:

8. You really, deep down, believe that relativity is correct, and you can't argue the maths, so you're reduced to arguing that while it is "mathematically correct", it can't be "physically correct". And you're two dumb to see the obvious inconsistency in such a position.

Your assinine attacks do get tiresome but frankly based on my repeadted posting of properly calculated cases,etc your snide commentsabout my abilities. etc have all been vacated.

You are being left looking pretty stupid and incapable of responding properly with physics rebuttal and are limited to making these assinine negative innuendos and sunsupported comments.

Good luck you sure need it.

 

[MacM]

James R,

I just want people to know how you operate. For years you keep posting nonsense which has nothing to do with my views and when I correct you, you then accuse me of flip-flopping.

I have consistantly insisted that mere relative velocity is limited to producing "Perception" or illusion of motion changes. But those vanish when relative velocity terminates. Hence they are NOT real physical changes and nobody is younger as a result of such observational changes.

I have consistantly insisted that real time dilation exists as a consequence of a change in absolute velocity. Of course nobody knows what such veloicty might be in absolute terms, if at all. But what is physical fact that if one is in an inertial condition it can be considered as a rest reference.

If you accelerate from that rest reference then you become time dilated relative to that rest frame reference and any clocks that might be in and remain in that reference frame.

Further as I have posted the diagrams of what can physically occur based on either clock time dilation and/or lorentz spatial contraction I have proven that the only physical affect that can produce the emperical data we have is clock time dilation and not spatial contraction.

Hence SR is nothing more than a hodge-podge mathematical construction and time-space is NOT a physical fact.

I have posted a number of suggestions for what may be behind relativity but have posted NO formal theories in contrast to your repeated false assertions.

It never ceases to amaze me just how off the mark your comments are. It has become clear that after this many yers and thousands of posts that for you to continue to post this nonsense it MUST be deliberate distortion.

That suggests that you really have NO valid rebuttal and must resort to these stupid off topic, irrelevant fabricated attacks and negative innuendos.

Your repeated baseless derogatory comments about my education, math ability, etc., needs to be clarified for those newcomers and visitors that don't know the truth.

I have had formal mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering; plus post graduate electronics design. While I have therefore had considerable physics education, I am not a physicist. I have had calculus and higher math but haven't used them in 45 years and hence don't pretend to do so but I can read and follow what is being done in most papers.

I have owned and operated my own R&D Corporation. I have done NASA contracts and they published my work. I have completed $1M contracts for major international companies. I hold numerous Patents in energy related fields of wind, transmissions and engine designs.

So all your huff and puff about what I do or do not understand and can do is just outright baseless bullshit.

My achievements are not mere verbal claims but exist in operational hardware. I hold patents on a transmission that NASA concluded would double in-city fuel economy and it was built,installed in a 1961 Studebaker Hawk and I drove it.

I built a gasoline powered 4 cylinder, 4 cycle Rotary Opposed Piston Engine with a 265 cubic inch displacement that was 6 inches long and 10 inches in diameter, tht weighed 45 pounds. A Ford Mustang uses a 289 in^3 V8 engine for comparison, that weighs several hundred pounds. My engine is less polluting, more fuel efficienct, smaller, lighter , less expensive and less maintenance.

Here is an air powered model used to acquire patent issued January 2009. Be sure to scroll down because there are actually (5) videos. The U-Tube name was posted by my eldest son. I'm not in Az he is. But he manufactured my engine you see in the video. I shared the patent with him to preserve his ability to enjoy the benefits of full patent protection in the event of my demise.

http://www.youtube.com/BigMacdaddyAZ

The air model housing is (3) times longer than would be in actual production due to our fabricating our own planetary assemblies using off-the-shelf gearing instead of specific gear designs that would be used.

I received (3) patents on a new wind Energy conversion Sytem last year and a company in Albq, N.M. has purchased the rights and are pursueing development.

Please list your achievements for comparison.

 

[James R]

MacM:

None of your patents and work experience involve understanding the theory of relativity. It is abundantly apparent from your posts that you lack both the capacity and the will to understand that theory.

It is fortunate that your work never required you to understand physics at a deep level, because I'm sure you could not have functioned and achieved what you did achieve had that been the case. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Not everybody is cut out to be a physicist. You're not unusual in that respect.

As for listing off my many achievements, I am content to remain humble. And as for the only thing that is relevant in our discussions, I'll let my posts on the topic of relativity speak for themselves. Although you are not in a position to judge the quality of my knowledge on that subject, many others here are.

 

[MacM]

MacM:None of your patents and work experience involve understanding the theory of relativity.

Of course not. But if you think I will just sit back and let you trash me you are sadly mistaken.

It is abundantly apparent from your posts that you lack both the capacity and the will to understand that theory.

More bullshit. I have repeatedly done the calculations and posted data for which you have yet to rebut. Your repeated recital of dogma and rhetoric are not bonafide physics replies.

For example you have not commented on just how length contraction can allow the resting twin to accumulate more time than the traveling twin if the clocks are indeed synchronized as claimed by Billy T.

If you disagree with Billy T then you should clarify that but then you wouldn't want to agree with MacM and go against another relativists would you. You would rather just make comments like above

It is abundantly apparent from your posts that you lack both the capacity and the will to understand that theory.

which are absolutely baseless and hollow innuendo.

Now either I'm right and Billy T is wrong or Billy T is right and you have to explain how the resting twin gets to accumulate more time after his brother has returned.

It is fortunate that your work never required you to understand physics at a deep level, because I'm sure you could not have functioned and achieved what you did achieve had that been the case.

More selfserving dribble based on absoluely nothing. FYI: I have in fact designed a muon fusion reactor that the Chief Nuclear Engineer of the Fusion Foundation has reviewed and says merits further study. The fact is you don't know a damn thing about me or my abilities.

There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Not everybody is cut out to be a physicist. You're not unusual in that respect.

Not claiming to be a physicist but certainly knowledgable of physics and of a clear mind and common sense which you seem to lack. You cannot think outside the covers of a book on relativity inspite of the most obvious flaws with the concept as being a physical theory.

It is in fact nothing more than an artifically constructed mathematical treaty. With utility if confined to appropriate venues but totally absurd and obviously invalid in every technical way.

i.e. - Even Einstein finally admitted that it would only be valid in absence of gravity; which excludes every square inch of the universe. The popstulate about invariance of light is voided by GR. The reciprocity of a relative velocity view is voided by GR.

SR has limited utility but no validity physically.

As for listing off my many achievements, I am content to remain humble.

None to cite I understand. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Not everybody is cut out to think for themselves but merely hang on the coat tails of others. You're not unusual in that respect.

And as for the only thing that is relevant in our discussions, I'll let my posts on the topic of relativity speak for themselves.

Then you are in big trouble because you have completely failed to post anything rebutting the issue. You can only launch false attacks on my person. I understand that. When you have nothingelse, you can only attempt to mitigate my posts.

REPEAT:But if you think I will just sit back and let you trash me you are sadly mistaken.

Although you are not in a position to judge the quality of my knowledge on that subject, many others here are.

Birds of a feather. And for your information I really don't care what you or anyone, and I mean anyone, including the likes of Hawkins might say, if it is nonsense it is still nonsense.

What you have tried to claim has been shear nonsense.

 

[James R]

MacM:

I have repeatedly done the calculations and posted data for which you have yet to rebut.

Please don't tell lies. I have effectively rebutted your nonsense for years now.

Your repeated recital of dogma and rhetoric are not bonafide physics replies.

Of course you don't think so, because the only "bonafide" reply according to you would be for me to say "Oh great MacM, you are right, master. I bow to your amazing insights and marvel that you can see what Einstein and all the other great physicists over the past 100 years have missed. It's so obvious to me now. Thankyou O great MacM!"

Sorry, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

For example you have not commented on just how length contraction can allow the resting twin to accumulate more time than the traveling twin if the clocks are indeed synchronized as claimed by Billy T.

Clocks are not synchronised in the twin paradox. This is basic time dilation stuff, MacM. Have you gone and confused yourself again?

I haven't been particularly interested in following your exchanges with Billy T. I assume you're just repeating yourself about points I've already rebutted. I can't be bothered putting even more effort into you.

It's possible that Billy T is wrong about something, but I doubt it. Probably you've just misunderstood him, like you misunderstand most of relativity.

FYI: I have in fact designed a muon fusion reactor that the Chief Nuclear Engineer of the Fusion Foundation has reviewed and says merits further study.

Does your reactor need relativity to work? Let's hope not. It would never get off the ground.

You cannot think outside the covers of a book on relativity inspite of the most obvious flaws with the concept as being a physical theory.

Meh. Me and a million other people who actually understand physics. We're all blind to the obvious flaws that anybody not indoctrinated into the great physics conspiracy can easily see. Yeah, right.

i.e. - Even Einstein finally admitted that it would only be valid in absence of gravity; which excludes every square inch of the universe. The popstulate about invariance of light is voided by GR. The reciprocity of a relative velocity view is voided by GR.

This is all nonsense. In fact, Einstein said that special relativity is a special case of general relativity (which is why it is called "special", by the way). He never said the invariance of light in all inertial frames is voided by GR. Nor did he ever say "reciprocity is voided" by GR.

You just make this stuff up.

As for listing off my many achievements, I am content to remain humble.

None to cite I understand. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. Not everybody is cut out to think for themselves but merely hang on the coat tails of others. You're not unusual in that respect.

Meh. Whatever. Unlike you, I am not worried, deep down, that my critics may be right about my lack of ability or achievements. I certainly have no need to justify or defend my achievements to somebody like you. They stand on their own merits. Mind your own business, MacM. I did not invite you into my personal or professional life.

And for your information I really don't care what you or anyone, and I mean anyone, including the likes of Hawkins might say, if it is nonsense it is still nonsense.

That would be Stephen Hawking. If you're going to criticise somebody you should (a) learn their name, and (b) actually read something they have written.

And you don't have to tell me that you believe that Einstein, Dirac, Fermi, Feynman, Hawking, Bohr, Heisenberg, Gell-Mann and all the other great physicists of the 20th century were wrong about relativity while you, MacM the unsung genius, is right about his nuttyfantasyphysics. Your delusion is well seated and immovable, I know.

 

[Billy T]

Just trying to keep you more honest MacM, especially as you say I lie, without ever giving any example I can refute. Note I document your lies by quoting them back to you as follows:

{POST 961} ... I said nothing about Lorentz Relativity. {Yes you did. Even twice in this same post! See blue below. And in earlier post also, such as 959 & 949 and many earlier too.} You apparently don't understand that lorentz contraction IS length contraction in SR. ...
….
See above FYI: Lorentz Contraction IS SR Length Contraction.

{POST 959, After I had said there is no physical contraction:} ... So you are claiming you have never heard of or do not accept lorentz contraction of distance? Just how were you talking about the traveling twin went less distance?

{POST 949, after I had explained that the traveling twin returned younger as he had traveled a shorter contracted distance according to the stay at home twin’s meter sticks, but his meter sticks were not physically contracted} ... Billy T's argument that neither length contraction nor time dilation are physically real is equally flawed in that an accelerated clock will display less accumulated time subsequent to having had relative velocity to the resting clock when compared in the common rest frame. To produce a real physical change there must be a real physical cause.
That being the case one must now decide is it length contraction according to SR or is it time dilation of clocks.
A change in velocity is a change in energy and hence makes some sense that that might affect atomic vibrations or ticks of a clock.*
A changing of distance by length contraction however produces several unacceptable consequences such as getting closer to something the faster you recede.
Therefore while either can cause the observed dilation of the clock it seems time dilation is the more logical choice for physics to consider.

Here MacM is not denying contraction in general, but saying in this twin paradox case it is more probable that the twin returns younger (less accumulated time) because of his clock is physically* running slower.
---------------
* I have pointed out that the atomic clock counts # cycles of atomic radiation to advance one second and that the frequency of this radiation is set by conservation of energy** and the atomic energy level spacing, which is computable by quantum theory. So for the second to take longer in the moving frame would require lower frequency and that would require atomic energy levels closer together – yet they are as calculated by THEORY. Thus for the clock to actually be running slow in its own frame, the speed of the frame must change quantum theory!
** Atoms radiate by an electron dropping from a higher “exceited” energy level to a lower one and this atomic energy lose is exactly the energy of the photon produced. Photon energies equal Planck’s constant times the frequency. Thus the atomic energy levels determine the frequency and that can not be different from what quantum theory calculates. (In some cases, to greater than 10 significant figure agreement with measured frequencies!) MacM probably does not understand, but by postulating a real physical change in the moving clock’s second, he is postulating that speed changes quantum theory!

 

[Billy T]

To make it easier for you, MacM to tell specificially where I lie, here is prior posted list of things you have stated, which I say are false:

{post 920} …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!.)

(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?

Tell at least by number (1 thru 7) which you have not said and why you think you are correct.

 

[MacM]

MacMlease don't tell lies. I have effectively rebutted your nonsense for years now.

I don't but you do. More false selfserving BS. You do not address the issues you divert to off topic, irrelevant BS. We have just seen how you completely reverse my view and then say it is silly. Of course it is silly you make it silly but it is not my view what you are addressing is your own distorted crap.

Of course you don't think so, because the only "bonafide" reply according to you would be for me to say "Oh great MacM, you are right, master. I bow to your amazing insights and marvel that you can see what Einstein and all the other great physicists over the past 100 years have missed. It's so obvious to me now. Thankyou O great MacM!"

Sorry, but it's not going to happen any time soon.

No all you need do is actually address the issue not your own distorted versions..

Clocks are not synchronised in the twin paradox. This is basic time dilation stuff, MacM. Have you gone and confused yourself again?

Posted by MacM:“ For example you have not commented on just how length contraction can allow the resting twin to accumulate more time than the traveling twin if the clocks are indeed synchronized as claimed by Billy T. ”

Thank you for making my point. Perhaps you should have noticed that I disagree with Billy T and I say they are NOT synchronized. Billy T has claimed NOTHING changes physically; which means they would be synchronized.

So you agree with me and don't even know it because you NEVER actually read or understand what has been posted. All you know to do is attack, attack, attack. Never mind that those attacks are completely off base.

I haven't been particularly interested in following your exchanges with Billy T. I assume you're just repeating yourself about points I've already rebutted. I can't be bothered putting even more effort into you.

Again you assume to much.

1 - you have yet to rebutt anything.

2 - You pop off like you just did without actually reading what was written.

It's possible that Billy T is wrong about something, but I doubt it. Probably you've just misunderstood him, like you misunderstand most of relativity.

Not at all. He just refuses to give a straight answer. He claims "All clocks tick the same" but then qualifies "in their own frame". When you try to get him to acknowledge that they are dilated between frames he refuses to acknowledge that and says nothing changes physically. If nothing changes physically then there would be no physical change in the twins age. - PERIOD.

Does your reactor need relativity to work? Let's hope not. It would never get off the ground.

More BS.

Meh. Me and a million other people who actually understand physics. We're all blind to the obvious flaws that anybody not indoctrinated into the great physics conspiracy can easily see. Yeah, right.

You mention conspiracy, not me. I have said no such conspiracy exists. You continue to insist that just plain stupidity must mean a conspiracy.

This is all nonsense. In fact, Einstein said that special relativity is a special case of general relativity (which is why it is called "special", by the way).

Gee and here I understood that he published "Special Relativity" 15 years before "General Relativity". LOL. You are a joke James R.

He never said the invariance of light in all inertial frames is voided by GR. Nor did he ever say "reciprocity is voided" by GR.

Read his quote again. He specifically mentions the invariance not holding in a gravity field and that SR can only be applied if gravity can be ignored. He does not mention the elimination of reciprocity but I challenge you to show that GR has reciprocity. That is a clock deep in a gravity field ticks slower and one further removed in lesser gravity ticks faster. No reciprocity - hmmmm.

You just make this stuff up.

You wish but unfortunately I have just correctly pointed out the truth once again. Of course you will ignore it.

Meh. Whatever. Unlike you, I am not worried, deep down, that my critics may be right about my lack of ability or achievements. I certainly have no need to justify or defend my achievements to somebody like you. They stand on their own merits. Mind your own business, MacM.

Nor will I allow you or anyone to smear my name with outright bullshit.

I did not invite you into my personal or professional life.

Nor did I invite you to attack my person.

That would be Stephen Hawking. If you're going to criticise somebody you should (a) learn their name, and (b) actually read something they have written.

I have.

And you don't have to tell me that you believe that Einstein, Dirac, Fermi, Feynman, Hawking, Bohr, Heisenberg, Gell-Mann and all the other great physicists of the 20th century were wrong about relativity while you, MacM the unsung genius, is right about his nuttyfantasyphysics. Your delusion is well seated and immovable, I know.

Actually you have things just a bit wrong here. Those other fellows haven't been as wrong. You are. Relativity exists. Even reciprocity exists in SR but what is wrong is your version of their work where you claim a physical reality for the illusion of motion aspects of reciprocity and failure to acknowledge that considering who accelerated when computing actual time dilation you have abandoned relative velocity as a cause and are using a preferred frame where reciprocity of SR's relative velcity view has been eliminated.

The error is YOURS sir not theirs.

 

[MacM]

Just trying to keep you more honest MacM, especially as you say I lie, without ever giving any example I can refute.

That is another lie. You falsely accused me of flip-flopping. I posted proof that that was a lie. You have continued to repeat the same allegation after having been corrected several times. That makes it become a lie on your part. You could have been mistaken once but not 3 - 4 times. Now it is clearly a deliberate lie.

Note I document your lies by quoting them back to you as follows: Here MacM is not denying contraction in general, but saying in this twin paradox case it is more probable that the twin returns younger (less accumulated time) because of his clock is physically* running slower.

PErfect example. You say you are documenting a lie. Then say I said it is more probable. I have several times clarified my view. spatial contraction or time dilation can procue a simular affect. But that I favor time dilation over spatial contraction because of ludricrus consequences of sptial contracton. I hve listed those affects as well. Yuo have not addressed those.

* I have pointed out that the atomic clock counts # cycles of atomic radiation to advance one second and that the frequency of this radiation is set by conservation of energy** and the atomic energy level spacing, which is computable by quantum theory. So for the second to take longer in the moving frame would require lower frequency and that would require atomic energy levels closer together – yet they are as calculated by THEORY. Thus for the clock to actually be running slow in its own frame, the speed of the frame must change quantum theory!
** Atoms radiate by an electron dropping from a higher “exceited” energy level to a lower one and this atomic energy lose is exactly the energy of the photon produced. Photon energies equal Planck’s constant times the frequency. Thus the atomic energy levels determine the frequency and that can not be different from what quantum theory calculates. (In some cases, to greater than 10 significant figure agreement with measured frequencies!) MacM probably does not understand, but by postulating a real physical change in the moving clock’s second, he is postulating that speed changes quantum theory!

Here we go again. This has been covered several times and I will not do it again. This is outright bullshit. Please tell everyone just how the twin gets younger if NOTHING physically changes. That has been you cliam and I say you are absoutely full of crap.

 

[phyti]

MacM post981;

This is NOT a frame dependant function as you generally like to cliam. I have shown before that the resting twin can accelrate quickly to join his spcae going brother as he returns without stopping and the space goer still is younger. So forget claiming it is frame dependant.

If one accelerates to part from the other, it's the one who rejoins that has the least accumlated time. In this case it's the path taken that is the determining factor. I couldn't show the formula in the drawing but the result is, for all v in the range -a to a, B's time is less than A's in case 1.

drawing

 

[phyti]

Billy post 992;

(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

Wave number is an invariant in SR, thus the number of cycles does not change, thus the frequency does not change.
Time dilation is about the time required for light propagation from one location to another. Light cannot move a distance x and a distance 2x in the same amount of time as read from the same clock!

 

[MacM]

To make it easier for you, MacM to tell specificially where I lie, here is prior posted list of things you have stated, which I say are false:

Tell at least by number (1 thru 7) which you have not said and why you think you are correct.

{post 920} …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.

Absolutely true because the constancy of light is:

1 - Not actually invariant except in absent of a gravitatyional field; which excludes every cubic inch of the universe.

2 - I have clearly stated I believe the invarince that has been measured is a matter of an illusion. I gave a possible explanation which I won't repeat here.

So where is the lie?

(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!.)

What a load of crap. I clearly pointed out tht the "Length Contraction" stipulated by SR is false. I also posted a qualification stating specifically that I was dong so so as to not have you at some point later claim I flip-flopped.

What I said was I do believe it is likely that space contracts but only at a very minor fraction of the rate claimed by SR. In fact as little as 1.11E-17th.

That is hardly "Exactly Opposite". Shssssh:bugeye:

So where is the lie?

(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.)

Again totally false. I merely pointed out that a traveling observer with a dilated clock knowing distance between pints traveled, would "Compute" a higher velocity. But I also clearly stated that relative velocity in absolute terms is symmetrical.

Distance between "A" & "B" = 1 lhr:

Velocity according to resting observer: 0.6c.

Time to traverse according to resting observer = 1 hour 40 minutes. 1.666 hr)

Time accumulated on traveling clock = 1 hours 20 minutes. (1.3333 hours)

Compute veloicty according to traveling observer 1 lhr/1.3333 hr = 0.75c!

So where is the lie?

(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..

Your post distorts my view. I have said that motion may be reltive to some absolute rest. But tht value is unknown and likely unknowable. But motion is energy.

Just as two clocks accelerated equally from common rest either co-moving or in opposition stay in synch their universal energy would also be the same.

You also ignore the study that found cosmic muon decay time was a fucntion of "Speed" relative to the CMB and not the earth. There is an ansitrophy in muon speed to the earth and that was used to properly compute the solar system's motion among the galaxies.

So where is the lie?

(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.)

Give me abreak. You still don't get it. When you select the ECI as a rest frame in GPS you have extablished a preferred frame. I have explained that a preferred frame is one wherein reciproicty is eliminated and you sare stipulating therefore only once clock can have motion.

The ECI is "Earth Center Inertial" and you cannot now claim that the orbiting clock is at rest and the ECI has orbit velocity. Reciproicty of SR has been voided. You are using LR and a preferredframe.

So where is the lie?

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

NONSENSE. I have not once in my life claimed any velocity was and illusion of moton. I have pointed out that SR's claim of apparent time dilaton during relative veloicty is an "Illusion of Motion" because the affect vanishes with no permanent change in accumulated time by clocks once relative veloicty has terminated.

So where is the lie? (From your mouth is it not?)

(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.

WHAT??????? Uter garbage.

MacM either (1) ignores fact cesium clocks only count # cycles of the cesium radiation to advance each and every second.

Opps you forgot to qualify "in their own frame". Thought you said "I always say "in their own frame"? So you lie.

( 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? ”

Here you go again. I won't bother going through this again. If nothing changes then there would be no permanent physcial affect on the traveling twins age. - PERIOD.

(Tell at least by number (1 thru 7) which you have not said and why you think you are correct.

Done: All (7) are either gross distortions or deliberate lies on your part.

Now when you and JamesR get tired of trying to subvert this thread from a valuable discusion about relativity into lets attack the anti-relatvist, lets get back to the subject.

You have had the opportunity now in at least 3 posts to review my diagrams. I suggest you address the issue of your clocks not having any physical change and explain how ythe reting twin's clock ever reaches 8 hours since the traveling twin returns in 4 hours.

Becsure to reply with a diagram not some SR rhetoric. We all know the rhetoric. Lets see the proof.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Perhaps you should have noticed that I disagree with Billy T and I say they are NOT synchronized. Billy T has claimed NOTHING changes physically; which means they would be synchronized.

So when Billy T says it, it can't be "illusion of motion", but when you say it then it always is. How convenient for you. Flip flop goes MacM again.

If nothing changes physically then there would be no physical change in the twins age. - PERIOD.

If I recall correctly, it is you who claims that relativistic effects are all "illusion of motion".

Gee and here I understood that he published "Special Relativity" 15 years before "General Relativity". LOL. You are a joke James R.

You prove once again that you don't know the history or the theory. When Einstein published SR in 1905, of course he didn't call it "special relativity". That was a label put on it retrospectively, after he published the general theory. That doesn't change the fact, acknowledged by Einstein and all other physicists, that SR is just a special case of GR.

Haha. You are a joke, MacM. LOL. You funny guy, you.

Read his quote again.

No need. I understood it the first time. You'll never understand it.

Actually you have things just a bit wrong here. Those other fellows haven't been as wrong. You are. Relativity exists. Even reciprocity exists in SR but what is wrong is your version of their work where you claim a physical reality for the illusion of motion aspects of reciprocity and failure to acknowledge that considering who accelerated when computing actual time dilation you have abandoned relative velocity as a cause and are using a preferred frame where reciprocity of SR's relative velcity view has been eliminated.

Now you want to pretend that your nuttyland physics is incorporated into the special theory of relativity. It is not, and never will be.

 

[Billy T]

That is another lie. You falsely accused me of flip-flopping. I posted proof that that was a lie. ...

Where? Quote my lie. GIVE POST NUMBER, as I do your lies and flip flopping (again below in part but more links were given earlier.)

Note the self contradiction (flip flopping) even in one MacM post,908, (red text directly contradicts the green text) and the admitted “frequent qualified” use of "Spatial Contraction." Sometimes asserting it does not exist and other post asserting it can only be physically real in the frame that previously had acceleration (never in the “resting frame”). Covering all possible point of views in only one post sure seems like “flip flopping” to me.

{post 908}... But at the same time I frequently have qualified my use of contraction in that context to "Spatial Contraction"....
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. ...

[post 920} No, Not lying - only quoting your flip flopping posts.
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.
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) ...
(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) ...
(4) ...
(5) ...
(6)...
(7)...

Read post 920 for fuller details. This post mainly concerns MacM's flip flopping. For example post 893, reference above is quoted in post 920, etc. I do not want to do too much double posting of the documetation already given in post 920 again - just enough to again prove MacM's skill as a flip flopper.

I again note MacM can only ASSERT, NOT DOCMUMENT, that I lie or flip flop.

 

[MacM]

MacM post981;If one accelerates to part from the other, it's the one who rejoins that has the least accumlated time. In this case it's the path taken that is the determining factor. I couldn't show the formula in the drawing but the result is, for all v in the range -a to a, B's time is less than A's in case 1.

drawing

I have to take exception to your conclusions.

If I establish a test course such that "A" start line is a known distance from "B", i.e. 100 lhr; plus an acceleration zone so that "A" can accelerate to 0.6c and go inertial at the start line.

At the start line "A" set his clock to t=0 and sends a light signal to "B" indicating "Start" and upon receipt "B" knows to set his clock to 100 hours into the test.

166.666 hours later according to "B", "A" flies by his loction and transmits a digital signal indicating his clock has accumulated 133.333 hours.

"A" is dilated to "B". "B" immediately accelerates to 0.6c joining "A" in "A's" frame, taking only a few milli-seconds (to keep it simple and his acceleration period can be ignored).

Once there he goes inertial and they again compare clocks. "A" replies 133.333+ a few milli-seconds, "B" replies 166.6666+ a few milli-seconds.

"A" is still dilated to "B" in both frames.

BTW: Based on the knowledge that the test course was 100 lhr long "A" would compute that he was going 100lhr/133.33 hr = 0.75c not 0.6c. In reality of course at some absolute level relative velocity is symmetrical.