Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[noodler]

[quoteMacM]to be physically dilated between frames that things have to change between frames. That is the frequency of trhe atomic clock is not the same frequency in both frames - EXCEPT mathematically in their frame.[/quote]

If I was a tutor in physics (which I'm not) I would advise a student making a statement like this that there is no physical change "between frames". The change is to the total energy in the frame, which is physical I suppose; note that the change means a change in velocity, so an accelerating frame has a continuous change in energy.

Lorentz contraction is a relativistic effect; locally an observer "in-frame" sees no contraction or change, only a dilation in distant time-and-space inertial frames. It appears to be an artifact, and isn't necessary in any case to demonstrate relativity; but the artifact remains as a consequence of Lorentz shifting - it falls out of the physics as a sort of energy-balancer. Mass doesn't increase or decrease, only the total energy.

 

[MacM]

Posted by MacM:"to be physically dilated between frames that things have to change between frames. That is the frequency of the atomic clock is not the same frequency in both frames - EXCEPT mathematically in their frame.

I was not the one claiming "Nothing changes" that has been Billy T. My point has been to produce physical change results requires physicl change in that frame.

[If I was a tutor in physics (which I'm not) I would advise a student making a statement like this that there is no physical change "between frames". The change is to the total energy in the frame, which is physical I suppose; note that the change means a change in velocity, so an accelerating frame has a continuous change in energy.

I have argued precisely that. The change is in energy level universally as a consequence of a change in absolute velocity.

[ Lorentz contraction is a relativistic effect; locally an observer "in-frame" sees no contraction or change, only a dilation in distant time-and-space inertial frames. It appears to be an artifact, and isn't necessary in any case to demonstrate relativity; but the artifact remains as a consequence of Lorentz shifting - it falls out of the physics as a sort of energy-balancer. Mass doesn't increase or decrease, only the total energy.

The change MUST be physical to produce permanent physical loss of accumulated time. The diagrams I have posted indicate that ONLY time dilation of clocks can produce the affect supported by empirical data.

Length (spatial) contraction does not work.

 

[Billy T]

MacM: ...Distance does not remain fixed in the travelling frame, so this diagram is wrong and so is your conclusion. Next!

The clock in different frames never tick "in sync[h]", so this diagram is wrong and your conclusions are invalid. Next!

At 60 mph distance does not contract in the travelling frame to half the value in the resting frame. Therefore, your diagrams are wrong again and no further discussion is necessary.

Well, that was easy, wasn't it?

If I had known it was that easy to show MacM's errors, I might have looked at his drawings.

I do not understand how MacM can think he is presenting SR results with his false MacM SR assumption that all clocks tick in sych. even if in different frames. Nor do I understand how he can accept contraction as real (even if he wishes to state that the SR computation of it is wrong) and yet not understand that it takes less time to travel d < D when both frames agree their relative speed is the same, for example A moving wrt B at 0.8C and B moving wrt A at 0.8C.

As an experiment, I showed the following to a girl not quite yet 5 years old:

__________________________________________________ D

________________________________ d

and explained that these represented two different distance she had to run as fast as she could. She correctly answered that it would take less time to run d than to run D.

In understanding this, MacM has less ability than a 5 year old!

Post 1031, with the above two line drawing, is not the first time I have explained the twin paradox:

{post 837} ... If the turn-around point is where the sun and Alpha Centaris are equally distant so that the total trip is the distance to Alpha Centaris and the moving clocks is moving wrt sun (or earth) at 0.8C on the trip and D Km is the Earth based clock distance to Alpha C. then for Earth based clock ran long enough to accumulate D/0.8C (where C is in Km/sec) but for the moving clock D is contracted to d < D so of course that trip took only d/0.8C seconds and as both clocks were ticking at the same rate in their own frame, the shorter round trip traveling clock accumulated fewer seconds. ...

 

[MacM]

If I had known it was that easy to show MacM's errors, I might have looked at his drawings.

I do not understand how MacM can think he is presenting SR results with his false MacM SR assumption that all clocks tick in sych.

You are pathetic Billy T. I have never claimed clocks in different frames tick in synch. I was proving that your statement that "Nothing physically changes" was false.

even if in different frames. Nor do I understand how he can accept contraction as real (even if he wishes to state that the SR computation of it is wrong) and yet not understand that it takes less time to travel d < D when both frames agree their relative speed is the same, for example A moving wrt B at 0.8C and B moving wrt A at 0.8C.

You might try looking at the diagrams twit.

As an experiment, I showed the following to a girl not quite yet 5 years old:

__________________________________________________ D

________________________________ d

and explained that these represented two different distance she had to run as fast as she could. She correctly answered that it would take less time to run d than to run D.

Did you also ask her how her daddy's watch said it took her longer "D"?

In understanding this, MacM has less ability than a 5 year old!

Post 1031, with the above two line drawing, is not the first time I have explained the twin paradox:

Yes and your drawing and explanations are at the level of a 5 year old. You fit that crowd very nicely.

Your above diagram does not meet the standard of defining how SR works.

My diagrams show what works and what does not work.

You need to try again you have failed once more.

If you are unable to support your view you should just admit it and move on.

 

[MacM]

If I had known it was that easy to show MacM's errors, I might have looked at his drawings.

I do not understand how MacM can think he is presenting SR results with his false MacM SR assumption that all clocks tick in sych.

You are pathetic Billy T. I have never claimed clocks in different frmes tick in synch. I was proving that yourcvstatement that "Nothing physically changes" was false.

even if in different frames. Nor do I understand how he can accept contraction as real (even if he wishes to state that the SR computation of it is wrong) and yet not understand that it takes less time to travel d < D when both frames agree their relative speed is the same, for example A moving wrt B at 0.8C and B moving wrt A at 0.8C.

You might try looking at the diagrams twit.

As an experiment, I showed the following to a girl not quite yet 5 years old:

__________________________________________________ D

________________________________ d

and explained that these represented two different distance she had to run as fast as she could. She correctly answered that it would take less time to run d than to run D.

Did you also ask her how her daddy's watch said it took her longer to go to "d" than she had recorded when she arrived at "D" via her short cut?

Of course not you always try to divert attention from thwe real issue.

In understanding this, MacM has less ability than a 5 year old!

Post 1031, with the above two line drawing, is not the first time I have explained the twin paradox:

Yes and your drawing and explanations are at the level of a 5 year old. You fit that crowd very nicely.

Your above diagram does not meet the standard of defining how SR works.

My diagrams show what works and what does not work.

You need to try again you have failed once more.

If you are unable to support your view you should just admit it and move on.

 

[Billy T]

...I have never claimed clocks in different frames tick in synch. ...

Perhaps not, but many times you start your
"logic" / argument with: "If clocks are ticking in sych (often spelled "sinc" or variants) then..."and go on to some false conclusion taking for granted that the "If" is satisfied.

 

[MacM]

Originally Posted by MacM:"“ Originally Posted by MacM
...I have never claimed clocks in different frames tick in synch. ...

Perhaps not, but many times you start your "logic" / argument with: "If clocks are ticking in sych (often spelled "sinc" or variants) then..."and go on to some false conclusion taking for granted that the "If" is satisfied.

I have never used "sinc". I have always used synch. I have raised the issue of synchronized clocks ticks as a way of proving clocks must NOT remain synchronized between frames. That does not work.

I've posted diagrams showing the affect IF clocks did NOT dilate physically to show that your "Nothing physically changes" claim is absolutely false.

Why on earth do you think it is appropriate to then reverse that and to falsely post that MacM thinks clocks remain synchronized between frames.

That is deliberate distortion and a lie. So you admit lying to people about MacM's views. What kind of rebuttal do you think that is?

I really hope people are paying attention here.

You and James R have been given over (6) opportunities to post detailed diagrams, as I have, showing YOUR view of physics. You have not done so you have only waffeled and weaved and made assinine posts showng one line shorter than another and saying "See how simple it is, it takes less time to go less distance".

The only thing simple here is your pea brain.

Now post a diagram showing distance and time in the resting observers view and another showing the same points and accumulated time for the traveling observer.

i.e: Units don't matter feet/miles/lyr and ticks/hours/lyr
Resting View
Distance: A.............................>B............................>A
Time.....t=0...............................2.............................4

Traveling View
Distance: A.............................>B............................>A
Time.....t=0...............................1.............................2

Etc. Got it.

It is a bit above 1st grade level. Hope you can handle it.


...........................................................................................................D
................................................................d

or

....................................................................................................X
.........................................................................x


Doesn't cut it.

 

[Billy T]

... You and James R have been given over (6) opportunities to post detailed diagrams, as I have, showing YOUR view of physics. You have not done so you have only waffeled and weaved and made as ...

FALSE: James R has responded in post 1038 to your false drawings - telling your three errors / false assertions / your figures are based on.

I have never even bothered to look closely at your complex drawings as I follow the KISS principle. Only a simple two-line drawing is required to explain the twin paradox, (even to a five year old, see post 1043), which I explained analytically in post 837 and and at least twice now with the simple two line drawing:

__________________________________________ D

__________________________ d

Where d is the contracted distance traveled to half way point between sun and Alpha Centari the traveling twin makes on each leg of his round trip journey.

I have no intention of discussing your more complex and thrice wrong drawings. (I avoid detailed discussion of your fabrications /false assumptions and assertions, just like I avoid discusion of whether or not the tail of a unicorn touches the ground, etc.)

{Post 1034}... If the traveling clock is NOT physically dilated compared to the resting clock then they tick in synch and each accumulates time at an equal rate and upon return (when ever that is) of the traveling twin then both clocks must read the same....

As I many times have stated there is no physical change, energy levels remain as predicted by Quantum Theory, etc. here you are falsely saying that my POV and SR’s is that they tick in synch. even in different frames.

{post997} the constancy of light is:
1 - Not actually invariant except in absent of a gravitational field which excludes every cubic inch of the universe.
2 - I have clearly stated I believe the invariance that has been measured is a matter of an illusion. …

MacM does not understand that speed of light is NOT changed by gravitational field. As photon climbs out of a gravitational potential well, it does lose ENERGY, not speed. I.e. there is a gravitation “red shift.” Energy is conserved. Physics is the same in all inertial frames – that includes the speed of light which can be COMPUTED from two measured values of two PHYSICAL properties of the vacuum (the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability). Thus physics being the same implies so is speed of light.

In the part of post 997quoted above, MacM is trying to find some reason why SR is wrong even though it is simple MATHEMATICAL consequence of the constancy of (1) speed of light and (2) physics in all inertial frames. Thus MacM thinks speed of light is a variable, especially wherever there is gravity (I.e. in the entire universe).

 

[MacM]

FALSE: James R has responded in post 1038 to your false drawings - telling your three errors / false assertions / your figures are based on.

Great I had missed his post. Now I can correct your assumptions here that my drawings are false. These drawings are shoiwng what happens if you "Assume" various conditions and the only conclusions that can be reached as a result.

*********************** #1038 *************************

Originally posted by MacM:"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. Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.


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

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

James R's insightful reponse: " Distance does not remain fixed in the travelling frame, so this diagram is wrong and so is your conclusion. Next!

Smug dogma. Recites theory but doesn't address physical reality. Further the issues of distance NOT remaining fixed is covered in another post which I will attach.

No cigar for this one. Nothing more than dogma & rhetoric, no physics support for his assertions. No counter diagrams showing his view of SR.

Originally Posted by MacM:" ********************************************************

CASE 2:

Clocks ticking in synch. Distance traveled 50%

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

...............................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. But must also read
4 hours when the traveling twin returns. ”

Another James R insightful reply:"The clock in different frames never tick "in sync[h]", so this diagram is wrong and your conclusions are invalid. Next!

Conlusions invalid???? The conclusion was clocks cannot remain in synch.

Conclusions VALID. He never actually reads what is written he merely assumes I am wrong and posts BS as a consequence.

No cigar for this one either.

Originally Posted by MacM:" ************************************************** *****

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. ”

Another insightful response from James R:"At 60 mph distance does not contract in the travelling frame to half the value in the resting frame. Therefore, your diagrams are wrong again and no further discussion is necessary.

James refuses to acknowledge the realities one can just as easily post a simular situation using relavistic velocities but the analogy sticks for it's intended purpose. His smug, smart ass replies simply do not address the issue but attempt to avoid doing so.

Posted by James R]Well, that was easy, wasn't it?

Like I said smug smart ass comments, dogma & rhetoric but no real physics rebuttals r diagrams of his view.

So just where do you think he posted proof of three errors? He merely recited theory which falsely asserts that in one frame time dilates and in another frame spatial length contracts. Two different physical consequence from the same unphysical cause. Not a sound physics view.

You go even further and claim there are no physical changes. That my friend is ludricrus on it's surface.

I have shown that if these were physical realities and both occurred you would not get the empirical results you have because physical is physical and is not subject to observer perception.

If it is only perception fine but perception does not cause changes in physical reality so you must decide what is physically real vs mere perception.

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

I have never even bothered to look closely at your complex drawings as I follow the KISS principle. Only a simple two-line drawing is required to explain the twin paradox, (even to a five year old, see post 1043), which I explained analytically in post 837 and and at least twice now with the simple two line drawing:

__________________________________________ D

__________________________ d

Where d is the contracted distance traveled to half way point between sun and Alpha Centari the traveling twin makes on each leg of his round trip journey.

I have no intention of discussing your more complex and thrice wrong drawings. (I avoid detailed discussion of your fabrications /false assumptions and assertions, just like I avoid discusion of whether or not the tail of a unicorn touches the ground, etc.)

1 - No, the simple truth is your drawings explain nothing.

2 - My drawings are not complex. They at least make physical sense.

3 - Your refusal to proceed is defacto proof you have no physics response.

4 - I have not been "thrice" wrong. That was your mistaken assumption.

Your assumption is that SR is valid and unquestionable. However I do question it and you simply have no answer so admit it.

Now post a legitamate diagram of your SR theory showing distance and time according to each observer.

As I many times have stated there is no physical change, energy levels remain as predicted by Quantum Theory, etc. here you are falsely saying that my POV and SR’s is that they tick in synch. even in different frames.

I have NEVER claimed clocks tick in synch in different frames - STOP LYING.

And stop hiding behind these frame dependant "Physics is the same in every frame" dodges. I have shown that physics does remain the same but when a clock is dilated it ticks slower and what ever process it is timing MUST also proceed slower for physics to remain the same.

That is why there can be time dilation between frames and clocks in each frame still measure physics to be the same. The processes must also slow down.

My TNT scenario shows that. In the traveling frame the clock is dilated to a remote resting observer. But so is the burn rate of the fuse (unless it happens to be oriented in the vector of motion such that SR causes it not to be by velocity addition-

MacM does not understand that speed of light is NOT changed by gravitational field. As photon climbs out of a gravitational potential well, it does lose ENERGY, not speed. I.e. there is a gravitation “red shift.” Energy is conserved. Physics is the same in all inertial frames – that includes the speed of light which can be COMPUTED from two measured values of two PHYSICAL properties of the vacuum (the dielectric constant and the magnetic permeability). Thus physics being the same implies so is speed of light.

Don't pretend to know what MacM understands becasue you are completely wet.

When Einstein published GR he stated the invariance of light exists in absence of gravity. THAT SR COULD STILL BE APPLIED IF GRAVITY WERE MINOR ENOUGH TO BE IGNORED. BEING IGNORED AND NOT EXISTING ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.

Now what do you suppose he was trying to say??????

THINK DAMN IT.

In the part of post 997quoted above, MacM is trying to find some reason why SR is wrong even though it is simple MATHEMATICAL consequence of the constancy of (1) speed of light and (2) physics in all inertial frames. Thus MacM thinks speed of light is a variable, especially wherever there is gravity (I.e. in the entire universe).

See above.

I don't have to TRY to find error it is obvious for anyone that cares to actually look. As far as light invariance I have pointed out how it may well be merely an illusion based on our lack of knowledge. So assuming it valid is not a sound physics bases to reject alternatives.

*************************************** Added *****************************

CASE 4:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both a clock's tick is dilated & distance foreshortens. 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...........0.5..........1...........1.5.......... .2
Distance ......................240 Miles......................!

In this view if you assume time dilaton has a physical cause (which it must) and you insist that both time dilation and spatial length contraction are real then this is what happens. The traveling twin returns in 4 hours according to the resting twin but the traveling twin clock would only accumulate 2 hours.

The only version that matches emperical data is Case #1 - Regardless of the assertions of SR, James R or Billy T.

You are certianly free to continue your ludricrus claims that nothing physical changes, yet you get physical change results or that space contracts in one frame while time dilates in another all from a non-physical cause - relative velocity.

Relative velocity is only a physical cause indirectly for the accelerated frame but provides absolutely NO cause for change in the resting frame..

You now are claiming magic not physics.

But once you realize you MUST have a physical cause to produce permanent physical change you must then decide what changes. I have done that and SR is wrong. Spatial contraction does NOT occur according to SR predictions.

ONLY INCREDIBLY DUMB ASSES WOULD THINK THAT RECITING A THEORY PROVES THE THEORY.

 

[James R]

The following thread is also relevant to the current discussion:

[thread=95873]Special relativistic length contraction and time dilation derived[/thread]

It proves mathematically that you can't have the postulates of special relativity without length contraction. Therefore, if you want to refute length contraction, as MacM does, you have to refute one or both postulates.

 

[James R]

Here are my diagrams, MacM:

Resting twin's view (using resting twin's clocks and rulers)
Space: A.............................B.............................A
Time:  0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10...11...12

Travelling twin's view (using travelling twin's clocks and rulers)
Space: A..............B..............A
Time:  0....1....2....3....4....5....6

This assumes a Lorentz factor of 2.

 

[MacM]

The following thread is also relevant to the current discussion:

[thread=95873]Special relativistic length contraction and time dilation derived[/thread]

It proves mathematically that you can't have the postulates of special relativity without length contraction. Therefore, if you want to refute length contraction, as MacM does, you have to refute one or both postulates.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. Who in the hell wants SR postulates? Not me.

WEBSTER:

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

Your claim is that if one does not accept SR then time dilation cannot exist. What a bunch of malarky.

SR is false and time dilation is physically real and supported by empirical data. Spatial length contraction is not supported. So dump SR and start over looking for and finding the real cause of physical change.

Relative velocity doesn't change anything. Actual velocity change via acceleration (frame switching) does.

 

[MacM]

Here are my diagrams, MacM:

Resting twin's view (using resting twin's clocks and rulers)
Space: A.............................B.............................A
Time:  0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10...11...12

Travelling twin's view (using travelling twin's clocks and rulers)
Space: A..............B..............A
Time:  0....1....2....3....4....5....6

This assumes a Lorentz factor of 2.

Thank you James R for finally complying with my request to post a diagram.

1 - Your diagram is my case 2 & 3; which you tried to phoo-poo.

But you fail to realize, as I correctly pointed out, that both clocks reach 6 hours at the same time and hence are shown as being in synch.

2 - Since clocks are in synch the traveling twin arrives back at (6) hours according to the resting twin and his clock can never reach 12 hours because the other twin has already returned by 6 hours according to both clocks.

Once gain the only scenario that fits empirical data is my diagram #1 where time dilates and distance remains fixed.

CASE 1:
Round trip according to resting Twin. Relative velocity is assumed symmetrical. .Times
are in hours. Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

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

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

A dilated clock with fixed distance matches empirical data. ”


1 - Do you agree that a permanent physical loss of accumulated time by a clock is a physical reality?

2 - Do you agree that to get a physical result one must have a physical cause?

3 - Do you agree that anything physical must be physical in all frames (i.e. - physics are the same in all frames).?

4 - If yes to the above be advised you cannot declare both time dilation and spatial contraction as physical realities. because:


CASE 4:
This is more clear if you view real world examples with both a clock's tick is dilated & distance foreshortens. 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...........0.5..........1...........1.5.......... .2
Distance ......................240 Miles......................!

In this view if you assume time dilation has a physical cause (which it must) and you insist that both time dilation and spatial length contraction are real then this is what happens. The traveling twin returns in 4 hours according to the resting twin but the traveling twin clock would only accumulate 2 hours.

5 - Therefore you must pick one that physically matches empirical data and that is #1 - ONLY.

 

[James R]

Your claim is that if one does not accept SR then time dilation cannot exist.

Don't put words in my mouth.

There may be theories other than special relativity that predict time dilation. You don't have one, though.

My point is that you can't keep the bits of relativity that you like and reject the others. The whole theory follows from the postulates. If you want to toss part of the theory, the whole thing has to go and you need to start again with different postulates.

You want to have your cake and eat it too, MacM. You want to use the Lorentz factor and special relativistic time dilation while at the same time rejecting length contraction. It doesn't work like that. You don't get to mix and match parts of the theory that your guts tell you are correct and reject the parts your gut doesn't like.

The fact is, you have no coherent alternative to relativity. What you have is half-relativity.

 

[James R]

MacM:

1 - Your diagram is my case 2 & 3; which you tried to phoo-poo.

No it isn't. Your case 2, for example, claims that the stationary and travelling clocks tick "in sync". They do no such thing in my diagram.

But you fail to realize, as I correctly pointed out, that both clocks reach 6 hours at the same time and hence are shown as being in synch.

No they don't. The rest clock reaches 6 hours half way through the trip. The travelling clock reaches 6 hours at the end of the trip. Quite different.

2 - Since clocks are in synch the traveling twin arrives back at (6) hours according to the resting twin and his clock can never reach 12 hours because the other twin has already returned by 6 hours ...

Yes.

... according to both clocks.

What's this bullshit? You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

1 - Do you agree that a permanent physical loss of accumulated time by a clock is a physical reality?

What's a permanent physical loss of time?

The end time differences on these clocks have to do with the fact that they stop at different times. There's no time "lost".

2 - Do you agree that to get a physical result one must have a physical cause?

Yes.

3 - Do you agree that anything physical must be physical in all frames (i.e. - physics are the same in all frames).?

I agree that the laws of physics take the same form in all frames. We've already been through this.

4 - If yes to the above be advised you cannot declare both time dilation and spatial contraction as physical realities. because:

CASE 4 [snip]

In this view if you assume time dilation has a physical cause (which it must) and you insist that both time dilation and spatial length contraction are real then this is what happens. The traveling twin returns in 4 hours according to the resting twin but the traveling twin clock would only accumulate 2 hours.

That's what the twin paradox is all about. Go read up on it.

 

[MacM]

Don't put words in my mouth.

There may be theories other than special relativity that predict time dilation. You don't have one, though.

My point is that you can't keep the bits of relativity that you like and reject the others. The whole theory follows from the postulates. If you want to toss part of the theory, the whole thing has to go and you need to start again with different postulates.

You want to have your cake and eat it too, MacM. You want to use the Lorentz factor and special relativistic time dilation while at the same time rejecting length contraction. It doesn't work like that. You don't get to mix and match parts of the theory that your guts tell you are correct and reject the parts your gut doesn't like.

The fact is, you have no coherent alternative to relativity. What you have is half-relativity.

You are finally partially correct.

The Lorentz time dilation appears supported by emperical data. Spatial contraction is not and as demonstrated by diagrams is not possible.

So it IS time to dump SR and find the true cause of physical change. That is not the Crackpots job that is your job. So do your job and stop procrastinating.

My half works. Including your other half does not. It is really that simple.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

No it isn't. Your case 2, for example, claims that the stationary and travelling clocks tick "in sync". They do no such thing in my diagram.

The simple facts on the table are that you have allowed SR mathematics scramble your brain to the point that you cannot follow simple deduction.

Lets take this one step at a time.

1 - Since you have trouble working with every day numbers as a simple analogy we will set some terms for your diagram. Our units of distance measure are called JR's not miles. Resting distance between A & B is set at 5.616E12m or 6 JR's. Each JR = 9.36E11m That takes 6 hours at v = 0.866666c or 12 hours for a round trip according to a resting clock. Gamma = 2.000.

Originally Posted by James R: (Red added by MacM)"Resting twin's view (using resting twin's clocks and rulers)
Space: A.............................B.............................A 12 JR's
Time: 0....1....2....3....4....5....6....7....8....9....10...11...12 12 hours

Travelling twin's view (using travelling twin's clocks and rulers)
Space: A..............B..............A 6JR's
Time: 0....1....2....3....4....5....6 6 hours

Now since relative velocity is symmetrical and You have the traveling twin going half as far, in half of the time, with equal velocity.

The clocks MUST tick in sync.

vr = 12JR's/12Hrs = 1JR/Hr

vt = 6JR's/6Hrs = 1JR/Hr

Since you say clocks in different frames cannot tick in sync then your diagram is invalid.

No they don't. The rest clock reaches 6 hours half way through the trip. The travelling clock reaches 6 hours at the end of the trip. Quite different.

Not so see above.

Originally Posted by MacM:" 2 - Since clocks are in synch the traveling twin arrives back at (6) hours according to the resting twin and his clock can never reach 12 hours because the other twin has already returned by 6 hours ...

”

Yes.

Yes what?. You agree that the traveling twin returns at 6 hours by both clocks?

What's this bullshit? You're contradicting yourself in the same sentence.

Where is the contradiction?. I state that the resting twin's clock cannot reach 12 hours because the traveling twin returns in 6 hours and as proven both clocks according to your diagram must be ticking in sync. So the resting twins clock must also read 6 hours when he returns.

What you are failing to see here is the physical reality of what is falsely being claimed by SR mathematics. That is the problem with dealing with nothing but mathematics and not looking at the physical realities.

What's a permanent physical loss of time?

You have to be joking. If the relavistic affect is not permanent what do you suppose would make the traveling twin younger.? Loss of accumulated time on a clock or cosmic muon life span are permanent affects.

Reciprocity or the perception of mutual time dilation while in relative motion is not a permanent affect since it vanishes once relative velocity terminates and there is no change in the resting frames clock.

The end time differences on these clocks have to do with the fact that they stop at different times. There's no time "lost".

So now you have just confirmed that the clocks have ticked in sync. You really should attempt to apply some common sense to what you are suggesting.

If NO time is lost and he travel one half the distance at the same velocity thenin one half the accumulated time then the time accumulated is equal to the time accumulated by the resting clock.

Like I said you have allowed Einstein so scramble your brain you do not think through even the most simple relationships. All you can see is what he says and not what the consequences are.

Yes.

Good we agree a physical result requires a physical cause. Now apply that

to your

There's no time "lost".

What do you get? How about NO time dilation and clocks are ticking in sync as you have them drawn.

There's no time "lost".[/quote]I agree that the laws of physics take the same form in all frames. We've already been through this.[/quote]

Good. Then if something is physical in one frame it must be physical in the other frame. But you have just contradicted yourself by saying a physical cause is required to get a physical affect and then saying there is no time lost, while clocks accumulate different amounts of time.

As demonstrated above that can only happen if clocks remain in sync with spatial contraction being the real cause but that circumstance means the resting clock must read the same when the traveling twin returns and it means both clocks tick in sync so it is invalid and does not support SR predictions.

Originally Posted by MacM as text attached to Case #4 Diagram:"In this view if you assume time dilation has a physical cause (which it must) and you insist that both time dilation and spatial length contraction are real then this is what happens. The traveling twin returns in 4 hours according to the resting twin but the traveling twin clock would only accumulate 2 hours.

There's no time "lost".

That's what the twin paradox is all about. Go read up on it.

I think not. Best re-read what I wrote. The twin paradox does not claim the above.

You have taken the text out of context of the diagram #4 which shows resting distance being 480 miles and 8 hours but the traveling twin only going 240 miles and his clock only accumulating 2 hours because it assumes both time dilation and spatial contraction are physical realities.

It is clearly incorrect according to SR predictions and is unsupported by empirical data.

AND YOU SAY IT IS CORRECT -

Like I have said you do not read what has been written you spout off with out thinking through what you are proposing.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Clearly you missed the point of post #1056. I have no intention of trying to get you to understand it. You're a waste of time.

As for your next post:

Now since relative velocity is symmetrical and You have the traveling twin going half as far, in half of the time, with equal velocity.

The clocks MUST tick in sync.

Say what?

For the same trip, one clock ticks off half the time of the other. That means one is ticking at half the rate of the other. You can't really be this thick, can you? Stop pretending.

Since you say clocks in different frames cannot tick in sync then your diagram is invalid.

My diagram shows two different times for the same trip, measured by two different clocks. It is 100% correct.

Where is the contradiction?. I state that the resting twin's clock cannot reach 12 hours because the traveling twin returns in 6 hours and as proven both clocks according to your diagram must be ticking in sync.

Probably you're mixing frames between my diagram for the resting twin and the travelling twin. The two clocks in the two diagrams are different clocks, not the same clock.

You're obviously hopelessly confused again.

If NO time is lost and he travel one half the distance at the same velocity thenin one half the accumulated time then the time accumulated is equal to the time accumulated by the resting clock.

You're babbling. Try to make some sense.

Also, you do realise, I hope, that in the travelling clock's frame of reference it is the "resting" observer that moves and not the travelling clock.

You have taken the text out of context of the diagram #4 which shows resting distance being 480 miles and 8 hours but the traveling twin only going 240 miles and his clock only accumulating 2 hours because it assumes both time dilation and spatial contraction are physical realities.

I don't care about your diagram #4. Like all your diagrams it is wrong. I've provided my own, correct, diagrams.

 

[MacM]

MacM:Clearly you missed the point of post #1056. I have no intention of trying to get you to understand it. You're a waste of time.

To the contrary James R it is you that seem incapable of learning. The diagrams (including yours) show that going 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the time, at the same velocity, means the traveling clock tick rate remained precisely the same.

Simple kindergarten stuff. It is nothing short of amazing that educated people with higher math cannot (or choose not to) understand that simple relationship.

If I drive 60 Mph for 6 hours I will go 360 miles. If I drive 60 Mph for for 12 hours I will go 720 miles. The clock tick rate doesn't change. There is no time dilation only distance change.

Do you understand now? Is this simple enough for your brain capacity?

As for your next post:

Originally Posted by MacM:"Now since relative velocity is symmetrical and You have the traveling twin going half as far, in half of the time, with equal velocity.

The clocks MUST tick in sync.

Say what?

You don't understand that statement and still claim to be intelligent? If the traveling clock does not change tick rate then it and the resting clock remain to be in sync.

For the same trip, one clock ticks off half the time of the other. That means one is ticking at half the rate of the other. You can't really be this thick, can you? Stop pretending.

OK verbally I agree. That is my diagram #1, not your diagram, and that is the only version that fits empirical data. Please note that when clocks dilate spatial distance doesn't contract.

Since such physical affect requires a physical cause it must be the same in both frames hence spatial contraction does not exist. It is purely a mathematical constructed artifact of the arbitrary merger of time and space.

My diagram shows two different times for the same trip, measured by two different clocks. It is 100% correct.

Not so "Same trip" means same distance. Your diagram claims the traveling twin only went half as far, in half the amount of time, such that it has both clocks must continue to be ticking in sync. That is in direct contrast to your claim above.

James R's above claim:"For the same trip, one clock ticks off half the time of the other. That means one is ticking at half the rate of the other.

You can't really be this thick, can you? Stop pretending.

Probably you're mixing frames between my diagram for the resting twin and the travelling twin. The two clocks in the two diagrams are different clocks, not the same clock.

Your not even being funny here. Of course they are two different clocks and that is why I (and you) show them in their respective diagrams.

What both our diagrams show is they tick in sync and accumulate the same amount of time if you assert spatial contraction as the cause for less time accumulation of the traveling clock. Which means the resting clock reads the same when the traveling twin returns. Which also means there is no time dilation.

You're obviously hopelessly confused again.

I frankly seem to be the one that understands physics while you choose to hang on to mere mathematics which on close inspection does not support what it is claimed verbally by SR to occur.

You're babbling. Try to make some sense.

Clarified Original Post by MacM:"If NO time is lost and he travels one half the distance, in one half the accumulated time, at the same velocity, then the clock tick rate MUST remain the same and the time accumulated by the traveling clock must be equal to the time accumulated by the resting clock. ”

Now if you can't follow this you are a hopeless case incapable of learning even grade school stuff.

Also, you do realise, I hope, that in the travelling clock's frame of reference it is the "resting" observer that moves and not the travelling clock.

Oh WOW. Now you want to introduce SR's reciprocity? You are pathetic. Please show empirical data supporting a resting clock having accumulated less time after no relative velocity continues to exist.

BTW: In your country have you ever heard the expression "Two wrongs do NOT make a right"?

Or perhaps we can try to confuse the issue even more if we can interject Relativity of Simultaneity and Velocity Addition into the mix.

Better yet lets stay on point and note that the issue has reduced to some rather simple facts. If you assert physical spatial contraction all clock must remain in sync in all frames and there is no time dilation; which is inconsistent with empericial data.

If you assert physical clock time dilation then the results match empirical data. Hmmmmm. MacM is right once again and James R is lost.

I don't care about your diagram #4. Like all your diagrams it is wrong. I've provided my own, correct, diagrams.

Of course #4 is wrong I said it was wrong. You seem embarassed by your prior comment that my #4 was correct.

So you choose, according to your diagram, to claim ONLY spatial contraction exists and all clocks tick in sync in all frames. In which case no time dilation exists.

If you cannot understand that going 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time, at the same velocity means the traveling clock tick rate did not change then you are stuck at a 3rd grade arithmetic level.

 

[Billy T]

...Who in the hell wants SR postulates? Not me..

I, and 100,000 people better educated in physics than you during the last 100 years do.

ALL logic has some set of postulates as its foundation. (Thus you are illogical without any.) One can never prove they are true, but one can test the hell out of them looking for some contradiction. The two foundation postulates of SR have been tested thousands of times (zillions of times by accident as Earth's orbit about the sun is constantly changing it velocity thru space yet the values in physics handbooks have shown zero periodic change with a 365 day period.)

In contrast MacM's SR is not even internally self consistent as shown in several prior posts (118, 198 and others I may add by edit). Furthermore as SR's strange effects, such as SR computed contraction, which MacM's SR claims are false, follow mathematically from these two very well confirmed postulates MacM, with no* basis, assert that at least one of these two well confirmed postulates is false.

----------------
*Perhaps it is more accurate to say MacM has a basis for claiming the speed of light is not constant, but his basis itself is false. MacM falsely claims speed of photon climbing out of gravity field well slows; instead of correctly knowing that its energy is decreased by the red shift.**(See MacM's post below)

{post 997}... the constancy of light is:
1 - Not actually invariant except in absent of a gravitational field; which excludes every cubic inch of the universe.
2 - I have clearly stated I believe the invariance that has been measured is a matter of an illusion. ...

**Not only has gravitational red shift been observed, but if the speed did decrease as MacM claims, then there would be a blue shift. But that is not unusual for MacM - he often has things exactly backwards.

To see MacM's slowing implies a blue shift, note speed of wave (even a water wave), S = L/P where L is the wave length & P is the oscillation period. If S is to decrease to only s, as MacM claims, then L must decrease if P duration of a cycle does not increase. But a shorter wavelength is a higher frequency or "blue shift", not the observed red shift. MacM rejects the correct red shift or longer period. Once again MacM's is predicting the opposite of what is observed fact!

Rejecting a longer period with a slowed down wave is correct and exactly what hapens as light slows down when passing thru glass, but the period (and frequency and energy) does not change. I.e. The space between peaks or waveleng this compressed while photon is inside the glass but this does not happen when photon is leaving a gravity field. Then it must lose energy (red shift or decrease frequency) so that the total energy is conserved. The compression of wave length is very obvious / easy to understand / if you consider the photon when front half is inside the glass not advancing as fast as the trailing part still in the air. - like a long line of toops marching with the front part slowed down by a muddy field. The space between the soldiers (or peaks of waves) decreases as they enter the mud (or the glass).

SUMMARY: I and >100,000 others prefer the standard SR as it is based on well confirmed postulates. We do not accept MacM's alternative, which has no confirmed postulates, is self contradictory and is based on (or makes) contra-factual assumptions, such as that the speed of light (instead of its energy) drops as photon climbs out of a gravitational well.

Here is the choice between two theories, One has:

(1) Has confirmed postulates - is self consistent - has predictions confirmed
AND other has:
(2) No postulates even stated*** - is self-contradictory - makes false predicitons

***Without postulated foundation, there is NO logic possible - only MacM's opinions server as the foundation.

PS - I can save MacM the trouble of responding by making his typical counter argument to logic and experimental facts. Here it is:

"That is BS, you ass hole. I have shown you are false and you can not offer any empirical support for your POV. Now respond to my drawings. You can not can you. That proves you don't have the slightest idea about physics. You just repeat the same old SR story without any thought."