Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[James R]

MacM:

AH! Now I see your major problem:

You may be a fool I am not. If a clock is tick dilated it is tick dilated in all frames.

How ironic that these two sentences come one after the other.

You are a fool, since you've missed one of the basics of relativity. Clock tick rates are frame-dependent, you see, MacM. A clock at rest is measured to tick faster than a moving clock.

Your mind must be fading, though. I'm sure you used to accept that this occurs.

Either that or this is just another MacM flip flop.

News Flash: MacM no longer believes in time dilation!

First, you dropped belief in the relativity of simultaneity. Then you dropped belief in relative velocity. Then you dropped belief in length contraction. Now time dilation is gone too. Soon your entire brain will be gone.

 

[CptBork]

Yes and no. I do that calculation to show it is in the range of -7.2us/day but then explain that GPS doesn't do that. They do NOT compute the surface rotational velocity and take the difference in time dilation with orbit dilation. They ONLY compute the orbit velocity to the ECI rest frame and get the -7.2us/day dilation that is because the 've' component is less than 1% if it were applied that way - it is not.

Strange that you say they would need to do things this way. Last night I found a way to get the exact same time dilation in SR even if you treat one of the clocks as passing through a series of rest frames the whole way through. I suspect your calculation missed out on a couple of subtleties- the same conceptual difficulties regarding simultaneity that seem to be giving you hiccups with regards to the twin paradox.

Of course I know about velocity addition. However I do not see velocity addition applying when you are considering relative velocity between two clocks. Velocity addition comes into play when you have relative velocity between an observer watching a craft with relative velocity to you and aboard that craft a third object such as a missle is fired. Velocity addition has to do with the missle velocity to you.

The craft would be 'v' and is the velocity relative to you. The missle velocity to the craft would be 'u' with the formula being w=(v+u)/(1+vu/c^2) or w = (v-u)/(1-vu/c^2) depending on the direction the misle was fired. Where w is the compound velocity between you and the missile.

The reason relativistic velocity addition is important is because if you're comparing two moving clocks, and then switch frames so that one of the clocks is momentarily seen to be at rest, the velocity of the second clock in this new frame is calculated from the relativistic velocity formulas.

I have made no GR considerations what-so-ever. I am strictly concerned about SR. As far as picking a frame where earth's surface is at rest I'm asuming you mean the vr = vo - ve.

That of course is not what is done and I merely go through that routine to show that IF you were to think that relative velocity was the difference in rotational velocity that you would get an incorrect answer.

Well firstly, to get an accurate answer you do in fact need to use the relativistic formula to calculate $$v_r$$ properly, and if you don't do it this way you can expect to find contradictions when you switch frames, since relativistic velocity addition pops out of the Lorentz transformations in the first place. Secondly, there are other factors you've neglected to take into account here. From my understanding, the way you're treating the calculation, you're implicitly assuming (whether knowingly or not) that the Earth-based clock can itself be treated in the same way as an inertial frame. Again, this is just my understanding of how one would set relativity up to calculate things the way you're doing it. To treat a rotating frame with the same mathematics as a truly inertial one, you have no choice but to appeal to GR, which is by design intended to handle all coordinate systems in general. If you do decide to switch to a rotating frame for your calculation, you will probably see a discrepancy in the motion-based time dilation even after you apply the correct velocity transformation laws. However, when you factor in the changes to gravitational time dilation that result from switching to a rotating frame, I believe all discrepancies in the total time dilation will vanish.

The ECI is preferred in that you CANNOT declare the orbiting clock as being at rest and the ECI having the orbit velocity. It prohibits the reciprocity of a mere relative velocity view and creates instead an absolute velocity view between orbit and the ECI.

I think you read to much into the term preferred referrence frame as being applied here. You are trying to extend it into having some meaning in GR which I have never claimed.

First of all the surface rotational velocity is NOT inertial while the orbit rotational velocity can be considered inertial since it is in constrant free-fall. So the improper form vr = vo - ve would be mixing an inertial frame with a non-inertial frame. That is IF you were to consider orbit as inertial. Some do and some don't and some like James R can't seem to decide and has flip-flopped claiming SR is used and then SR is not used. That orbit is non-inertial and is continuously accelerating or thatit is inertial and in free-fall.

Well as I said, if you want to treat a rotating frame as inertial, you need to use GR. When I was taking GR as a course, we had to do a calculation similar to GPS on our final exam. The idea was actually pretty simple if you knew what you were doing- imagine a satellite held up in a fixed place above the Earth, lassoed to the moon perhaps so it doesn't fall out of orbit. First you calculate the time dilation between a stationary (non-rotating) point on Earth and this satellite using the Earth's gravitational metric. Then you apply a Lorentz boost in the satellite frame to see how time would dilate for a moving satellite in orbit, and another boost in the fixed Earth point frame if you want to account for a moving ground clock. This is essentially how the ECI calculations in your quotes are actually done. To treat the satellite as being on a geodesic and calculating its time dilation this way should be possible, but I think it would be somewhat tedious.

Here's the main thing I wanted to write for now, though: you continuously claim that Einstein chickened out one day and had to resort to introducing GR to cover his ass. You made this claim with the twins paradox, to which I responded by demonstrating how I could naively come along in any reference frame I please, observe the initial clocks and positions of everyone, and correctly predict how their clocks will compare when the two twins meet up at the end, even if I knew nothing whatsoever about GR. Now you're doing it again with the GPS system, claiming there's only one reference frame in which SR can get the correct motional time dilation, after gravitational dilation has been accounted for.

I say again you're false, and I have already done the calculations to prove it. GR was invented for one reason and one reason only: to handle gravity. As a bonus, it provides a sweet way of treating arbitrary reference frames, but that's not an absolute requirement for solving problems. Let's take GR and gravity out of the picture altogether, and replace the GPS example with a nearly identical example, but this time the clocks are held in place by glue or rope or something so that they orbit or rotate around the Earth the same way, but there's no gravitational time dilation and no need to worry about GR. If you arrange things so that the two clocks are aligned in a geosynchronous orbit, and calculate their time dilations with respect to any stationary point on Earth, you get the same motional time dilation differences as were shown in your original GPS example. On the other hand, treating the Earth-based rotating clock as if it were continuously passing through a series of inertial frames, properly accounting for how velocities add, and also accounting for the effects of simultaneity, I was able to get the exact same answer.

So my challenge to you is this: shall I demonstrate the proper way to calculate rotational time dilation in good ole' fashioned 1905 SR, thus showing you why the ECI frame is no more special than any other inertial frame? Or would you like a chance to look through your calculations first and see if you can spot the flaw in your own reasoning? Like I say, I think I know exactly why you seem to be getting the contradictions you claim, and when I took this into account I myself got the right answer. So please let me know ASAP where you want to go from here.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

AH! Now I see your major problem:



How ironic that these two sentences come one after the other.

You are a fool, since you've missed one of the basics of relativity. Clock tick rates are frame-dependent, you see, MacM. A clock at rest is measured to tick faster than a moving clock.

Your mind must be fading, though. I'm sure you used to accept that this occurs.

Either that or this is just another MacM flip flop.

News Flash: MacM no longer believes in time dilation!

First, you dropped belief in the relativity of simultaneity. Then you dropped belief in relative velocity. Then you dropped belief in length contraction. Now time dilation is gone too. Soon your entire brain will be gone.

Thanks for making my point. Your post demonstrates just how lost you are. I have not flip flopped. You are making false and assinine statements becasue you have no real physics response.

According to whom do you claim the resting clock measures faster? Certainly not the traveling twin and according to the resting twin his clock has not changed and is ticking normally and claims his traveling brother's clock is ticking slow.

Your post is the most simple of diversions. Of course if one clock is ticking slow the other clock would be measured to be ticking faster but that is not what SR advocates.

SR advocates that from each frame the other clock ticks slower and you know it.

Go try to confuse others.

 

[MacM]

Strange that you say they would need to do things this way. Last night I found a way to get the exact same time dilation in SR even if you treat one of the clocks as passing through a series of rest frames the whole way through.

Making positive statements is easy. If you had any mathematical proof my comments were invalid you should post them. Further I have not claimed GPS "Should" do anything. I have merely posted what they ACXTUALLY do. Perhaps you need to write them and tell them you have a better way to operate their system.

I suspect your calculation missed out on a couple of subtleties- the same conceptual difficulties regarding simultaneity that seem to be giving you hiccups with regards to the twin paradox.[.quote]

Unsupported negative innuendo. I have no problem with relativity of simultaneity.

The reason relativistic velocity addition is important is because if you're comparing two moving clocks, and then switch frames so that one of the clocks is momentarily seen to be at rest, the velocity of the second clock in this new frame is calculated from the relativistic velocity formulas.

Your comments here merely parallel my own claim that one must integrate the acceleration period velocities to get a correct final results. You have said nothing here that I do not know or have not said previously said except your assertion that integration requires using the velocity addition. That appeasr bogus but even if that were true it is a strawman comment in that acceleration can be a mere immeasureable fraction of the total trip and hence can be ignored as to any time dilation cause.

Well firstly, to get an accurate answer you do in fact need to use the relativistic formula to calculate $$v_r$$ properly, and if you don't do it this way you can expect to find contradictions when you switch frames, since relativistic velocity addition pops out of the Lorentz transformations in the first place. Secondly, there are other factors you've neglected to take into account here. From my understanding, the way you're treating the calculation, you're implicitly assuming (whether knowingly or not) that the Earth-based clock can itself be treated in the same way as an inertial frame. Again, this is just my understanding of how one would set relativity up to calculate things the way you're doing it. To treat a rotating frame with the same mathematics as a truly inertial one, you have no choice but to appeal to GR, which is by design intended to handle all coordinate systems in general. If you do decide to switch to a rotating frame for your calculation, you will probably see a discrepancy in the motion-based time dilation even after you apply the correct velocity transformation laws. However, when you factor in the changes to gravitational time dilation that result from switching to a rotating frame, I believe all discrepancies in the total time dilation will vanish.

Nice diatribe. Unfortunately this is not how MacM computes orbit velocity it is how GPS computes orbit veloicty. Perhaps you are skimming and not actually reading. I have also said the GPS does not and cannot use vr = vo - ve but only compute veloicty affect using absolute orbit speed to the ECI frame.

If you disagree with their mathematical process perhaps you should notifiy them so they can upgrade their system to your standards.

Well as I said, if you want to treat a rotating frame as inertial, you need to use GR. When I was taking GR as a course, we had to do a calculation similar to GPS on our final exam. The idea was actually pretty simple if you knew what you were doing- imagine a satellite held up in a fixed place above the Earth, lassoed to the moon perhaps so it doesn't fall out of orbit. First you calculate the time dilation between a stationary (non-rotating) point on Earth and this satellite using the Earth's gravitational metric. Then you apply a Lorentz boost in the satellite frame to see how time would dilate for a moving satellite in orbit, and another boost in the fixed Earth point frame if you want to account for a moving ground clock. This is essentially how the ECI calculations in your quotes are actually done. To treat the satellite as being on a geodesic and calculating its time dilation this way should be possible, but I think it would be somewhat tedious.

Nonsense. Stop making up other scenarios and stick with the reality of the GPS structure and how GPS actually computes. They do not compute orbit speed affects using GR and as I have correctly pointed out the basic Lorentz formula used by SR to compute velocity affects produces the correct empirically supported time dialtion value.

So you are merely attempting to interject confusion rathercthan address reality.

Here's the main thing I wanted to write for now, though: you continuously claim that Einstein chickened out one day and had to resort to introducing GR to cover his ass. You made this claim with the twins paradox, to which I responded by demonstrating how I could naively come along in any reference frame I please, observe the initial clocks and positions of everyone, and correctly predict how their clocks will compare when the two twins meet up at the end, even if I knew nothing whatsoever about GR. Now you're doing it again with the GPS system, claiming there's only one reference frame in which SR can get the correct motional time dilation, after gravitational dilation has been accounted for.

I have never claimed Einstein set out to CYA by developing GR but there was even a public challenge made to him about the twin paradox which took him several years to respond and did so by the introduction to GR. I have also never claimed that the only solution to the paradox is via GR. I have only stated what is recorded history and fact. Just as SR normally doesn't do computations in non-inertial frames it can. So you are wrong in your basic assumptions here.

No. What I have said is SR involves inherent reciprocity because it is based strictly on a relative veloicty view and it precludes a frame which disallows computing relavistic affects directly between two clcoks moving with a relative veloicty.

Now the same "Lorentz" formula is used to compute the time dilation to a common rest frame but you are no longer actually using SR but LR. So perhaps you, like others, believe there is only one relativity and everything computed must therefore be SR. TRhat is a biased and untrue view.

I say again you're false, and I have already done the calculations to prove it. GR was invented for one reason and one reason only: to handle gravity. As a bonus, it provides a sweet way of treating arbitrary reference frames, but that's not an absolute requirement for solving problems. Let's take GR and gravity out of the picture altogether, and replace the GPS example with a nearly identical example, but this time the clocks are held in place by glue or rope or something so that they orbit or rotate around the Earth the same way, but there's no gravitational time dilation and no need to worry about GR. If you arrange things so that the two clocks are aligned in a geosynchronous orbit, and calculate their time dilations with respect to any stationary point on Earth, you get the same motional time dilation differences as were shown in your original GPS example. On the other hand, treating the Earth-based rotating clock as if it were continuously passing through a series of inertial frames, properly accounting for how velocities add, and also accounting for the effects of simultaneity, I was able to get the exact same answer.

So my challenge to you is this: shall I demonstrate the proper way to calculate rotational time dilation in good ole' fashioned 1905 SR, thus showing you why the ECI frame is no more special than any other inertial frame? Or would you like a chance to look through your calculations first and see if you can spot the flaw in your own reasoning? Like I say, I think I know exactly why you seem to be getting the contradictions you claim, and when I took this into account I myself got the right answer. So please let me know ASAP where you want to go from here.

I have no particular interest in the calculation. If you think it is important then post it. But it doesn't alter anything. My post stands. The ECI frame is a preferred frame in the sense that it precludes reciprocity. I have even previously stipulated it was not the same standard use of the term "Preferred Frame" that you now want to assert I don't know about and you sir are simply wrong.

"Prefered" as used in my post strictly means it disallows reciprocity and is not a standard SR frame. It does not suggest that there can not be other methods or frames used for calculation.

Saying SR is not used is not the same as saying it cannot be used. And it is NOT used for orbit calculation affects in GPS.

 

[CptBork]

Making positive statements is easy. If you had any mathematical proof my comments were invalid you should post them. Further I have not claimed GPS "Should" do anything. I have merely posted what they ACXTUALLY do. Perhaps you need to write them and tell them you have a better way to operate their system.

They do the calculations this way because it's the most convenient way of doing them, that's all. It's the easiest way to consider both the effects of gravitation, and of relative motion, at the same time. I already explained this to you but I'll bet you never even read the relevant sections.

Unsupported negative innuendo. I have no problem with relativity of simultaneity.

Well if you applied that to GPS calculations from other rest frames, together with the correct formula for relativistic velocities, it would resolve your supposed ECI paradox.

Your comments here merely parallel my own claim that one must integrate the acceleration period velocities to get a correct final results. You have said nothing here that I do not know or have not said previously said except your assertion that integration requires using the velocity addition. That appeasr bogus but even if that were true it is a strawman comment in that acceleration can be a mere immeasureable fraction of the total trip and hence can be ignored as to any time dilation cause.

Did you even read my argument? Where did I say acceleration was important in doing the calculations? Quote me. All I said is that if you want to switch frames, then the velocities of objects in that new frame are transformed from the original frame by specific rules. If you ignore the rules, you get incorrect results. If you ignore the effects of simultaneity, you also get incorrect results.

I have never claimed Einstein set out to CYA by developing GR but there was even a public challenge made to him about the twin paradox which took him several years to respond and did so by the introduction to GR.

I already showed you how Einstein himself introduced the twins paradox in the first place, in one of his two original 1905 papers, and solved it at the same time. Your objection was that Einstein referred to clocks instead of twins or insects. I don't see that as being much of a challenge. A clock is a clock, did Einstein care whether or not it was manufactured by RCA?

I have no particular interest in the calculation. If you think it is important then post it. But it doesn't alter anything. My post stands. The ECI frame is a preferred frame in the sense that it precludes reciprocity.

So you're saying that if I faithfully apply the rules of Special Relativity in a correct mathematical fashion, doing all the calculations as I move along with the Earth-based clock and based only on measurements I can make myself, I won't be able to correctly predict the orbiting clock's readout at the end of the day? I will somehow have to cheat and refer to some stationary observer's measurements in order to get it right?

So if I show how to carefully apply the rules of Special Relativity, referring only to relative velocities, and get the correct answer, that would mean your assertion is wrong, and does not stand after all, yes? What say you?

 

[Billy T]

... Clock tick rates are frame-dependent, you see, MacM. A clock at rest is measured to tick faster than a moving clock. ...

MacM does not seem to be capable of considering three or more frames at the same time. Thus for him, the frame, A, with "Actual velocity" is physically changed to have clocks tick slower as SR calculates and as is observed in the "Rest" frame, R, which only has "relative velocity" not "actual velocity." Relative velocity according to MacM does not produce any "physical effects" - SR's assertion that it does ("reciprocity") is nonsense as how can rest produce any real physical change?

You are asking MacM how can the physical change of A, which has A's clock ticking at (for example) half the rate of the R frame clocks (1:2 ratio) be also the cause of the tick rate ratio observed by still a Third frame, T, which also has actual velocity, but not as much as frame A.

For example, with the speed of T wrt R less than the speed of A wrt R, which produced the 1:2 tick ratio, then the frame A to frame T tick ratio (for example) might be 2:3 as the speed of A is faster than T (both wrt to R).

That is possible even if the cause of tick ratios is a physical change in A and in T if the speed of T is chosen correctly.* (Both A & T have physically changed tick rates as both have "actual velocity" WRT R.) This is not any problem for MacM because he can only consider two frames at a time. Three is beyond his capacity. (Please don't ask what is the tick ratio T to R, even though T has Actual velocity also as that is a third frame.)

I.e. you are wasting your time to suggest that there are other frames in addition to A & R. MacM can agree that tick rates are "frame dependent" PROVIDED that there are only two frames to consider: frames A & R. (No Ts are allowed - too stressful on his brain and also exposes the nonsense that the time dilation is explained by one physical change in A.)

Shame on you James – stressing an old sick man like that.

PS to MacM: Be careful in your reply. This could be a slightly hidden trap for you, used to later expose the same type of self contradiction exposted in post 118 and 198. I will be kind and clearly hint what the trap is: Your explanation, I bet, will require one variable (speed of T wrt R) to be mathematically constrained to take two different values. To illustrate for you in simple terms what that means: I bet your reply will effectively will require X = 7 and X = 8 for a variable with only one value. I.e. again contradicting yourself.

Please note I have not assumed any part of standard SR is true or even made reference to anything from standard SR.
Only "MacM SR" appears in this post suggesting (showing if the numbers are put in) that MacM SR is NOT even self consistent.

------------------
*MacM has given detailed instructions** as to how to calcualte the tick rate ratio A:T. In quick summary: Each is separately calculated using the speed wrt to R and then you subtracted them. Do this with the speed of T wrt R, Str, as the unknown to solve for when the ratio T:A is set equal to 2:3. Then see if that speed (producing A:T = 2:3) when used with SR equation gives a tick rate for T:R that is internally consistent.

I.e. we need following tick ratios:
A:T:R
2:3:4 with only the one choice of Speed Str with which to satisfy BOTH (A:T = 2:3) AND (T:R = 3:4)

** First, ARAIK, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2303345&postcount=93
and MacM has reconfirmed the proceedure several times.

PS to MacM: Most accepted theories do not contradict themselves.

 

[MacM]

They do the calculations this way because it's the most convenient way of doing them, that's all. It's the easiest way to consider both the effects of gravitation, and of relative motion, at the same time. I already explained this to you but I'll bet you never even read the relevant sections.

You are surely the one not reading. I have correctly pointed out how they actully compute orbit velocity affect and that it is not via SR. I have only said that they did not use SR. I did not say SR cannot be used. And to continue to suggest somehow I am lost when it is you that are generating your own distorted versions of what I have said makes it your problem not mine.

Further they do a seperate gravity adjustment. So your assertion that this is both a gravity and velocity calculation decision is simply false. It is a decison to avoid the reciprocity inherent in Special Relativity's relative velocity view. One cannot have time dilation reverse and have theearth clocks being dilated in the orbit view. You would be generating the twin paradox in our GPS system.

Well if you applied that to GPS calculations from other rest frames, together with the correct formula for relativistic velocities, it would resolve your supposed ECI paradox.

There is no ECI paradox. Whatever are you talking about.?

Did you even read my argument? Where did I say acceleration was important in doing the calculations? Quote me. All I said is that if you want to switch frames, then the velocities of objects in that new frame are transformed from the original frame by specific rules.

Nice dodge but no cigar.

Originally Posted by CptBork:" All I said is that if you want to switch frames, then the velocities of objects in that new frame are transformed from the original frame by specific rules. If you ignore the rules, you get incorrect results.

Hopefully others will notice that one does not switch frames or transfer to a new frame from an original frame without acceleration. Why are you being so defensive about noting that correct time dilatin predictions involve who has accelerted and hence has actual veloicty in a relative velocity pair?.

Oh now I remember, because that slaps Special Relativity right in the smacker.

If you ignore the effects of simultaneity, you also get incorrect results.

They do not ignore simultaneity and I have not once claimed they do but simultaneity is not part of the orbit velocity calculation. Simultaneity is considered by computing signal travel times to and from the satellites. They also consider Sagnac. They also consider a frame which is the Barycenter of the solar system.

So what?

I already showed you how Einstein himself introduced the twins paradox in the first place, in one of his two original 1905 papers, and solved it at the same time. Your objection was that Einstein referred to clocks instead of twins or insects. I don't see that as being much of a challenge. A clock is a clock, did Einstein care whether or not it was manufactured by RCA?

I'll would have to do a lot of research if you don't post specific information on this because his work is quite volumous but had Einstein done what you now claim he did, there would never have been a Twin's Paradox" that lasted for over a decade.

But it is not possible to prove a negative and I will not waste time trying. So if you insist you are correct you will have to post that information specifically . Otherwise the fact that the Twin's Paradox existed for so many years falsifies your claim.

Also I have made no objection regarding clocks versus the twins or insects, etc. That is shear nonsense.. Your comment it completely baseless.

So you're saying that if I faithfully apply the rules of Special Relativity in a correct mathematical fashion, doing all the calculations as I move along with the Earth-based clock and based only on measurements I can make myself, I won't be able to correctly predict the orbiting clock's readout at the end of the day? I will somehow have to cheat and refer to some stationary observer's measurements in order to get it right?

No, I did not say nor imply that at all. I said what I said which was:

"IF you take earth surface velocity as ve and orbit velocity as vo and assume relative velocity is vr = v0-ve and you use that relative velocity to compute time dilation between the clocks you will only get -5.8us/day. Which is an incorrect answer. "

And that is all I said. You again attempt to add meaning to my statements which were not said or implied. I have at no time said the way they do compute velocity affect without SR is the only way to get a correct answer.

So if I show how to carefully apply the rules of Special Relativity, referring only to relative velocities, and get the correct answer, that would mean your assertion is wrong, and does not stand after all, yes? What say you?

I say if you can prove that you can correctly tell me the time dilation between two frames based on your view from a third frame where the relative velocity between those frames in your view is 0.6c or you can stipulate a relative veloicty between two clocks, without knowing which one or both may have accelerated, and you can back that calculation with supporting empirical data showing correct predictions for both clocks and not mere SR mathematics then I will conceed my compaint against SR is falsified.

The floor is yours.

 

[MacM]

MacM does not seem to be capable of considering three or more frames at the same time.

baseless and false selfserving negative innuendo

Thus for him, the frame, A, with "Actual velocity" is physically changed to have clocks tick slower as SR calculates and as is observed in the "Rest" frame, R, which only has "relative velocity" not "actual velocity." Relative velocity according to MacM does not produce any "physical effects" - SR's assertion that it does ("reciprocity") is nonsense as how can rest produce any real physical change?

Well, well you finally said something truthful.

You are asking MacM how can the physical change of A, which has A's clock ticking at (for example) half the rate of the R frame clocks (1:2 ratio) be also the cause of the tick rate ratio observed by still a Third frame, T, which also has actual velocity, but not as much as frame A.

For example, with the speed of T wrt R less than the speed of A wrt R, which produced the 1:2 tick ratio, then the frame A to frame T tick ratio (for example) might be 2:3 as the speed of A is faster than T (both wrt to R).

T----->0.1c...>R<.........0.866c<......A

I believe this is what you have said

That is possible even if the cause of tick ratios is a physical change in A and in T if the speed of T is chosen correctly.* (Both A & T have physically changed tick rates as both have "actual velocity" WRT R.) This is not any problem for MacM because he can only consider two frames at a time. Three is beyond his capacity. (Please don't ask what is the tick ratio T to R, even though T has Actual velocity also as that is a third frame.)

What a lot of crap. I have posted a simular scenario in this thread not long ago. So for you to say much less suggest it is beyond me is deliberate bullshi_.

Given the numbers I have applied to your diatribe.

T will tick 0nly 994,987,437 to every 1,000,000,000 ticks of R.

A will tick only 1 time for every 2 ticks of R.

That in fact was the very point of my post in that the relative velocity of 0.6603c time dilation factor of 750,933,915 ticks of A to every 1,000,000,000 ticks of A is not supported.

So your comments fail at two levels.

1 - I damn well have repeatedly posted (3) frame scenarios and properly computed all aspects of their relationships and have shown why SR fails as a physical theory.

2 - A does not affect T or vice versa. The only physical affect is between T & R and A & R. The relative velocity calculation for time dilation between T & A is not supported by empirical data. That has been my very point

The time differentail between A & T is 494,987,437 to 1,000,000,000 ticks of R not the 750,933,915 predicted by applying SR to their relative velocity.

Now I'm only discussing true time dilation that will be in evidence once relative velocity has been terminated and I am not addressing the "Sees" or "Percieves" the other as time dilation during relative motion which is nothing more than an "Illusion of Motion" condition.

I.e. you are wasting your time to suggest that there are other frames in addition to A & R. MacM can agree that tick rates are "frame dependent" PROVIDED that there are only two frames to consider: frames A & R. (No Ts are allowed - too stressful on his brain and also exposes the nonsense that the time dilation is explained by one physical change in A.)

Absolutely false and more selfserving negative innuendo. How is it self-serving? Because unless you can mitigate my posts your inability to reply to the issue I raise makes you look stupid and SR is falsified. But in any case you are a deliberate liar and distorter and have not responded to the physical issue I have reaid you justvwant to attack personalities because that is all you can do.

Good luck you need it.

Shame on you James – stressing an old sick man like that.

Funny Billy T. My own mortlity has prompted me to actually finish my book and publish so perhaps I'll invite you to Sweden after all.

PS to MacM: Be careful in your reply. This could be a slightly hidden trap for you, used to later expose the same type of self contradiction exposted in post 118 and 198.

It would be nice if you were to actually post information showing what yu think is contridictary since I have already blown simular charge by you out of the water. You mis-interprete what has been said or you extrapolate your own versions and distortions and then argue forvenr with yourself.

I will not waste time looking back and trying to figure out where you have screwed up again but just note that you hve been corrected several time for the same errors in your assertions.

If you think there is some actual contriciction then bpost it and I will once again make you et your slanderous words.

I will be kind and clearly hint what the trap is: Your explanation, I bet, will require one variable (speed of T wrt R) to be mathematically constrained to take two different values. To illustrate for you in simple terms what that means: I bet your reply will effectively will require X = 7 and X = 8 for a variable with only one value. I.e. again contradicting yourself.

Speak english please that is utter nonsense. I posted the correct result above and I await to see you post anything other than mere SR propaganda otherwise. That is you have absolutely no contridicting empirical data to what I have calculated and my calculations (contrry to your assertion I don't know this stuff) are correct.

Please note I have not assumed any part of standard SR is true or even made reference to anything from standard SR.[/b]
Only "MacM SR" appears in this post suggesting (showing if the numbers are put in) that MacM SR is NOT even self consistent.

Failure # 1,000,000,001 on your part. You have shown no such thing. So go back to the drawing board.

with only the one choice of Speed Str[/b] with which to satisfy BOTH (A:T = 2:3) AND (T:R = 3:4)

** First, ARAIK, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2303345&postcount=93
and MacM has reconfirmed the proceedure several times.

I don't know if anybodyelse knows what you just said but I sure as hell do not. But it appears for some reason that you think T results will change if A changes or something like that and the answer of course is that T and A always compute their time dilation to R and that is the only true physical time dilation.

If A changes T's dilation does not change to R but the net dilation between T & A changes but only because A dilation dchanged.

Now if you think that is incorrect you are completely lost and need to start over bubba.

[But the computed dilation between A & T will change just as it should and the new relative velocity calculation between T & A will not only change but continue to be invalid physically.

PS to MacM: Most accepted theories do not contradict themselves.[/QUOTE]

Good because mine does not and SR does.

BACK TO THE ISSUE OF SR CONTRIDICTION:

1 - It requires a physical cause to produce a physical change.

2 - Anything physical in your frame must be physical in all frames.

3 - There is emperical data supporting time dilation of clocks (variable tick rates based on different frames due to having accelereated.

4 - There is no empirical data to support lorentz spatial length (distance) contraction.


CASE 1: Length Contraction

A round trip from point "A" to "B" and back to "A"

......................................................................... Trip 1 ..........................................................
Distance A.............................................................B.............................................................A
Time.......0..........1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9..........10

......................................... Trip 2 ...........................
Distance A.............................B.............................A
Time.......0..........1...........2...........3...........4...........5

It can be clearly seen that if the distance between "A" and "B" is reduced to 1/2 that traveling at the same speed one completes trip 2 in 1/2 the accumulated time.

Nothing about the clock changes. The clock in trip 1 ticks precisely at the same rate as the clock in trip 2.

It does not take a genius to understand that trip 1 is the same as the view in SR as being that of a resting observer and trip 2 the view of a traveling observer.

That means that clocks in the trveling frame and resting frame both tick in unison and must have accumulated an equal amount of time at the point the traveling twein has returned to point "A".

No time dilation occurs if you declare spatial length (Distance) contraction is a physical reality and that is inconsistent with empirical data.

CASE 2: Time Dilation

A round trip from point "A" to "B" and back to "A"

....................................................................Resting..............................................................
Distance A.............................................................B.............................................................A
Time.......0..........1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9..........10


.........................................................................Traveling............................................................
Distance A.............................................................B.............................................................A
Time.......0......................1.......................2.......................3........................4........................5

It can be seen that clock tiem dialtion is consistrant with empirical data.

CONCLUSION: Special Relativity's claim of spatial length (distance) contraction is false and hence SpecialRelativty is falsified.

Now instead of wasting our time with your nonsense why not show your stuff and properly actually overturn my falsification of your pet theory.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

And how does this respond to the "1/2" sceanario? It doesn't. What you can't refute my flawed logic? What does that say about your abilities?

You've already had people reply to you on that. Besides, from what I can gather from your poorly defined and utterly arm waving whining you're claiming SR says something it doesn't. Please precisely and carefully explain the thought experiment you're talking about.

As for my abilities, I've made little effort to show you 'my abilities'. Unlike you my physics and mathematics knowledge is relevant to theoretical physics and unlike you I'm willing to do the algebra. Have you ever opened a book on relativity? It's full of algebra. What does it say about your abilities when you have no relevant experience and you refuse to talk quantitative. Surely in all your work with NASA you've realised details are important?

My statement is absolutely correct and your purported mathematical skills have nothing to do with resolving this issue. Otherwise you would have done so

You mean aside from me constructing an explicit counter example to what you claimed physicists say about SR. So someone on a forum said "Relative motion always gives different measured time periods", big whoop. Do you have an example of a textbook saying that? Because if you can't provide such an example you have no evidence that is a statement made 'by the mainstream'.

Tell me, what was the last relativity textbook you read?

As far as knowing 'some' physics comment, it appears you are a bit flushed and embarassed about your rush to judgement about my knowledge and sticking your foot in your mouth.

Nope. I stand by what I said. Your work and education provides you with zero hands on experience, barely any qualitative knowledge of relativity and by your own admission you've not done calculus in decades. If anything you stuck your foot in it, given you have had to admit I beat you hands down when it comes to relevant practical knowledge and results in relativity related physics.

But feel free to give me an example where you've done practical work with relativity.

You have bveen caught making absolute statements as though you knew something that you knew absolutely nothing about. So your opinions about me and my knowledge has absolutely no merit. I have to question your veracity about your own qualifications.

This is a paper of mine. Feel free to tell me where in your electrical engineering work you do relativity related calculations. And explain how you're up to speed on the quantitative stuff of relativity when you admit you've not done calculus in years.

Spatial distance contraction is part of the explanation according to relativity and I PROVE that if spatial contraction were physically real no time dilation occurs; hence I falsify SR.

You falsify an experimentally observed phenomenon? Wow, that's really impressive.

you disagree then please post your rebuttal it doesn't require your higher mathematics just the ability to think and do 3rd grade arithmatic. What this is over your head, to hard to explain?

Ah, nice bit of work there. You refuse to accept my 'higher mathematics' (basic vector calculus is 1st year undergrad work, if not high school stuff. You said you'd done calculus?) but you will accept '3rd grade arithmetic'. We're back to 'no true Scotsman'. If I try to use anything you don't understand (because you've never done any quantitative relativity and barely remember calculus) then you will refuse to accept it, thus allowing you to say "Unless you can explain it to me in terms I understand, you're wrong". The "If I can't understand it its wrong!" logic is common place among cranks. Some cranks claim to have 'the ultimate theory' because you can't bare to accept there's something in the universe they can't understand, while others denounce theories they don't understand because they can't bare to accept there's some things which others can understand but they can't. I can't understand Japanese, doesn't mean I think it's all gibberish or I think my doctor is making it up just because I don't understand the endocrine system.

Good because mine does not and SR does.

Special relativity is, in essence, basic geometry applied to the world of physics. Euclidean geometry and Newtonian space-time are basically one and the same, Newtonian space-time possesses Euclidean geometry so the consistency of Newtonian physics is built upon the consistency of Euclidean geometry. Of course we know Newtonian space-time isn't quite right, but this implies not that Euclidean geometry is wrong but that the assumption Euclidean geometry is how the universe works is wrong. Special relativity is built on Minkowski geometry, where Euclidean geometry has a set of rotations known as the SO(3) group Minkowski geometry intertwins this with time to give the SO(3,1) group. These groups, for historical mathematical reasons too irrelevant (and too complicated for you) to go into, are extremely well studied. You can't call yourself a physicist if you've never seen those notations before. Anyway, if SR is inconsistent as a mathematical structure then so is the group structure of SO(3,1) and its mathematically a pretty simple system, being self consistent. You won't find SR leads to a self consistency, you can only show it leads to a prediction about nature which we don't see, just as SO(3) is a valid group and its associated space, Newtonian space-time, is self-consistent but physically not valid.

Find a physical system which doesn't fit the two postulates of SR and you knock it over as a model of physics. Find an internal inconsistency and you knock over 2 centuries of mathematics.

Though something tells me this logic will be lost on you....

 

[Billy T]

... I don't know if anybody else knows what you just said but I sure as hell do not. ...

Ok MacM I’ll re-state that part of my post 1166 again in “baby steps” for you:

There are three frames: A, T, and R where R is your Rest frame from which A & T accelerated away prior to gaining their current inertial states. Thus, both A & T have what you call “actual velocity” but A is leaving R faster than T is. The speed of A wrt R is such that the time dilation tick ratio is 1:2. (or 2: 4 which will be more convenient later so I may state it that way.)

There exists* some ONE speed of T wrt R such that the A:T tick ratio is 2:3 or to summarize the tick ratios thus far: A:R = 2:4 and A:T = 2:3 which can compactly be written A:T:R = 2:3:4. I will even put into words for you (and if still confused by the above, ignore those words and just start with these bold words):

For every 4 ticks of clocks in R there are 3 ticks of clocks in T and 2 ticks of clock in A.

Note that the speed of T wrt R is chosen to make A:T = 2:3 and that there is only one such speed. Your post 93 method tell how to find this speed and I gave your method in my prior post. (That part is quoted at end of this post again.)

However, the T:R ratio must be 3:4 and there is also only one such speed for which that is true. The method you agree to computed is the SR equations as T does have your “actual velocity” wrt the rest frame R. Thus we have two different “MacM” approved way to calculate the same speed. These two procedures do NOT give the same result. Thus you methods and theory are in self conflict.
--------------------
*It should be obvious, but here if you need it, is a proof that there exist one unique speed of T wrt R such that the A:T ratio is 2:3:
If T is leaving R at very nearly the same speed as A is then A:T is ~1:1 = 4:4 as A & T are very nearly the same frame.
Likewise if T is hardly moving away from R at all, then the A:T is almost the same as the A:R 1:2 = 2:4 ratio as T & R are very nearly the same frame.
So depending upon the speed of T wrt R the A:T tick ratio can take any value between 2:4 and 4:4.
For convenience, I chose to have the speed of T wrt R such that the A:T ratio is 3:4.

... MacM has given detailed instructions** as to how to calculate the tick rate ratio A:T. In quick summary: Each is separately calculated using the speed wrt to R and then you subtracted them. Do this with the speed of T wrt R, Str, as the unknown to solve for when the ratio T:A is set equal to 2:3. ...
** First, ARAIK, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2303345&postcount=93
and MacM has reconfirmed the procedure several times. ...

 

[MacM]

You've already had people reply to you on that.

Not with any suitable physics reply. James only wants to recite SR theory and Billy T can't decide what causes time to dilate and claims nothing physically changes. That of course is preposterous otherwise you would have not physical affect on an accelerated clock.

Besides, from what I can gather from your poorly defined and utterly arm waving whining you're claiming SR says something it doesn't. Please precisely and carefully explain the thought experiment you're talking about.

There is nothing poorly defined in this diagram. You either have been given bad poop or just wrongfully assume that to be the case.

************************ FACTS ***********************

1 -Must you have a physical cause for a physical result? "Yes".

2 - Must something physical be physical in all frames? Yes"

3 - Is there empericial data supporting time dilation as being physically real? "Yes"

4 - Is there emperical data supporting spatial length contraction as being physically real? "No"

Given these facts the following diagrams set the stage for the Conclusion.

CASE 1: A tick time dilated clock.

A round trip from point "A" to "B" and back to "A"

.................................................................. Resting Twin.......................................................
Distance A.............................................................B.............................................................A
Time.......0..........1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9..........10

............................................................... Traveling Twin.......................................................
Distance A.............................................................B.............................................................A
Time.......0......................1.......................2.......................3.......................4..........................5

This scenario matches empirical data.


CASE 2: Lorentz Spatial (Distance) Contraction Gamma = 2

A round trip from point "A" to "B" and back to "A"

.................................................................. Resting Twin.......................................................
Distance A.............................................................B.............................................................A
Time.......0..........1...........2...........3...........4...........5...........6...........7...........8...........9..........10
..............................................................................!
.................................Traveling Twin.....................!
Distance A.............................B.............................A
Time.......0..........1...........2...........3...........4...........5
............................................................................./\
..............................................................................!
......................................Traveling Twin returns HERE

It can be clearly seen that if the distance between "A" and "B" is reduced to 1/2 that
traveling at the same speed, the traveling twin completes the trip in 1/2 the accumulated
time. But nothing about the clock changes. Both twin clocks MUST tick precisely at the
same rate and accumulate time equally such that upon the traveling twins return the
resting twin's clock will also display 5 hours and no time dilation can have occured.

This is inconsistant with empirical data and falsifies the assertion in Special Relativity.
that time dilates in one frame view while distance contracts in the other.

As for my abilities, I've made little effort to show you 'my abilities'. Unlike you my physics and mathematics knowledge is relevant to theoretical physics and unlike you I'm willing to do the algebra. Have you ever opened a book on relativity?

Self-serving rhetoric and false negative innuendo. Your math and physics skills have nothing to do with resolving the above situation. It involves 3rd grade arithmatic and common sense.

It requires only that you consider something other than the standard rhetoric or dogma posted by a relativist protecting his turf.

It requires that for the first time as an educated man you be honest with yourself and not waive the right to think for yourself and just recite SR theory as the answer. You must think about what SR wants you to accept as a scientific person.

It's full of algebra. What does it say about your abilities when you have no relevant experience and you refuse to talk quantitative. Surely in all your work with NASA you've realised details are important?

You only assume my experience is irrelevant. I suggest that if you can't properly refute my charge then my experience must be superior to your own.

You mean aside from me constructing an explicit counter example to what you claimed physicists say about SR. So someone on a forum said "Relative motion always gives different measured time periods", big whoop.

I have NO idea what you are talking about here. But whatever it is NONE of my views or opinions have come from somebodyelse much less from some forum.

Do you have an example of a textbook saying that? Because if you can't provide such an example you have no evidence that is a statement made 'by the mainstream'.

Since I don't even know what you are saying how could I quote a book that says it. What the hell do you mean by "Relative motion always gives different measured time periods"?

Tell me, what was the last relativity textbook you read?

Irrelevant however; it was abut a year ago and it was a copy of Albert Einstein's published version of General Relativityv from the El Paso City Library. It was rather small may 4" x 5" x 3/8" thick in paper back.

How do yuo see that in any manner having anything to do with you not being able to effectively refute the above diagrams except by fiat.

Nope. I stand by what I said. Your work and education provides you with zero hands on experience, barely any qualitative knowledge of relativity and by your own admission you've not done calculus in decades. If anything you stuck your foot in it, given you have had to admit I beat you hands down when it comes to relevant practical knowledge and results in relativity related physics.

I do not mean to imply any commonality here but I must remind you that when Einstein published Special Relativity he was a lowly clerk in the Swiss Patent Office.

The point of this reminder is just that the merits of what I have posted above speak more forceably than your insistance that your education somehow trumps truth.

But feel free to give me an example where you've done practical work with relativity.

You are looking at it. If you can't properly refute it I'd say I've done rather well.

This is a paper of mine. Feel free to tell me where in your electrical engineering work you do relativity related calculations. And explain how you're up to speed on the quantitative stuff of relativity when you admit you've not done calculus in years.

As noted many times now the issue is not about some unique knowledge about relativity but about applying basic physical realities without turning a blind eye to discrepancies produced by the ludricrus arbitrary merger of time & space into time-space.

You falsify an experimentally observed phenomenon? Wow, that's really impressive.

Read more slowly above. I falsify UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS of Special Reltivity. I do NOT falsify time dilation. I insist it occurs. Relativity exists without any doubt. The issue is NOT Einstein's Relativity.

Ah, nice bit of work there. You refuse to accept my 'higher mathematics' (basic vector calculus is 1st year undergrad work, if not high school stuff. You said you'd done calculus?) but you will accept '3rd grade arithmetic'. We're back to 'no true Scotsman'. If I try to use anything you don't understand (because you've never done any quantitative relativity and barely remember calculus) then you will refuse to accept it, thus allowing you to say "Unless you can explain it to me in terms I understand, you're wrong". The "If I can't understand it its wrong!" logic is common place among cranks. Some cranks claim to have 'the ultimate theory' because you can't bare to accept there's something in the universe they can't understand, while others denounce theories they don't understand because they can't bare to accept there's some things which others can understand but they can't. I can't understand Japanese, doesn't mean I think it's all gibberish or I think my doctor is making it up just because I don't understand the endocrine system.

Totally not true. You post your mathematical proof refuting the above diagrams. I don't mean post SR mathematics because reciting a theory does not prove a theory. You must demonstrate via your exceptional math abilities that somehow clocks in CASE 2 above tick asynchronously such that they match SR's assertions.

Go ahead we anxiously await your revelatons.

Special relativity is, in essence, basic geometry applied to the world of physics. Euclidean geometry and Newtonian space-time are basically one and the same, Newtonian space-time possesses Euclidean geometry so the consistency of Newtonian physics is built upon the consistency of Euclidean geometry. Of course we know Newtonian space-time isn't quite right, but this implies not that Euclidean geometry is wrong but that the assumption Euclidean geometry is how the universe works is wrong. Special relativity is built on Minkowski geometry, where Euclidean geometry has a set of rotations known as the SO(3) group Minkowski geometry intertwins this with time to give the SO(3,1) group. These groups, for historical mathematical reasons too irrelevant (and too complicated for you) to go into, are extremely well studied. You can't call yourself a physicist if you've never seen those notations before. Anyway, if SR is inconsistent as a mathematical structure then so is the group structure of SO(3,1) and its mathematically a pretty simple system, being self consistent. You won't find SR leads to a self consistency, you can only show it leads to a prediction about nature which we don't see, just as SO(3) is a valid group and its associated space, Newtonian space-time, is self-consistent but physically not valid.

No SR is an arbitrary mathematical construct based on misunderstood observations. SR is a concept of flat space-time where Einstein himself say does not exist in the universe. That it is only true in absence of gravity. Since gravity prevails everywhere SR is no valid anywhere.

Useable certainly if as Einstein said gravity is sufficently weak so as to be able to ingore it. But ignoring it doesn't make it not there and it does not make SR valid. It merely makes SR have utility as long as you NEVER think of it as being physically valid. Hence it must be treated with very careful gloves and not applied in any unlimited manner.

Find a physical system which doesn't fit the two postulates of SR and you knock it over as a model of physics. Find an internal inconsistency and you knock over 2 centuries of mathematics.

Though something tells me this logic will be lost on you....

The logic that seems lost here is that trying to knock over SR using SR rules is nonsense. SR must comply with basic axioms and physics.

Your mentality is such that you follow the following rules:

To falsify my view follow Rule 1.

Rule 1 follow Rule 2.

Rule 2 follow Rule 1.

Have fun falsifying my view just use valid physics rules do not just recite SR.

 

[James R]

It can be clearly seen that if the distance between "A" and "B" is reduced to 1/2 that traveling at the same speed, the traveling twin completes the trip in 1/2 the accumulated time. But nothing about the clock changes.

This is a simple lie, that I have previously exposed in the following post:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2363220&postcount=1159

Repeating yourself after you have been corrected amounts to trolling.

Both twin clocks MUST tick precisely at the same rate and accumulate time equally such that upon the traveling twins return the resting twin's clock will also display 5 hours and no time dilation can have occured.

If they accumulated time equally for the same trip, then the clocks would show the same final time. They do not. Therefore, we conclude that they can not have ticked at the same rate.

This is inconsistant with empirical data and falsifies the assertion in Special Relativity.

Relativity does not make the claim that MacM lies about. Therefore, MacM's lie does not falsify relativity.

 

[MacM]

Ok MacM I’ll re-state that part of my post 1166 again in “baby steps” for you:

There are three frames: A, T, and R where R is your Rest frame from which A & T accelerated away prior to gaining their current inertial states. Thus, both A & T have what you call “actual velocity” but A is leaving R faster than T is. The speed of A wrt R is such that the time dilation tick ratio is 1:2. (or 2: 4 which will be more convenient later so I may state it that way.)

There exists* some ONE speed of T wrt R such that the A:T tick ratio is 2:3 or to summarize the tick ratios thus far: A:R = 2:4 and A:T = 2:3 which can compactly be written A:T:R = 2:3:4. I will even put into words for you (and if still confused by the above, ignore those words and just start with these bold words):

For every 4 ticks of clocks in R there are 3 ticks of clocks in T and 2 ticks of clock in A.

Note that the speed of T wrt R is chosen to make A:T = 2:3 and that there is only one such speed. Your post 93 method tell how to find this speed and I gave your method in my prior post. (That part is quoted at end of this post again.)

However, the T:R ratio must be 3:4 and there is also only one such speed for which that is true. The method you agree to computed is the SR equations as T does have your “actual velocity” wrt the rest frame R. Thus we have two different “MacM” approved way to calculate the same speed. These two procedures do NOT give the same result. Thus you methods and theory are in self conflict.
--------------------
*It should be obvious, but here if you need it, is a proof that there exist one unique speed of T wrt R such that the A:T ratio is 2:3:
If T is leaving R at very nearly the same speed as A is then A:T is ~1:1 = 4:4 as A & T are very nearly the same frame.
Likewise if T is hardly moving away from R at all, then the A:T is almost the same as the A:R 1:2 = 2:4 ratio as T & R are very nearly the same frame.
So depending upon the speed of T wrt R the A:T tick ratio can take any value between 2:4 and 4:4.
For convenience, I chose to have the speed of T wrt R such that the A:T ratio is 3:4.

Sorry this is ridiculus. I will not start another scenario refutation of your distorted versions of my post. Just post where my math in your last post was incorrect.


Further more if you can't learn to speak plain english and not write as though you are writing tax code* then I will not attempt to even follow the bouncing ball.


* posting disclaimers or qualifiers to complex assertions far removed from current text. Going back an forth loses continuity. (You should put qualifers in brackets in the text). Try it you might like it. of course you need to write more succinctly:

Qualifier Originally Posted by Billy T:'*It should be obvious, but here if you need it, is a proof that there exist one unique speed of T wrt R such that the A:T ratio is 2:3:
If T is leaving R at very nearly the same speed as A is then A:T is ~1:1 = 4:4 as A & T are very nearly the same frame.
Likewise if T is hardly moving away from R at all, then the A:T is almost the same as the A:R 1:2 = 2:4 ratio as T & R are very nearly the same frame.
So depending upon the speed of T wrt R the A:T tick ratio can take any value between 2:4 and 4:4.
For convenience, I chose to have the speed of T wrt R such that the A:T ratio is 3:4.

to a scenario this long:

Original Post by Billy T:"There are three frames: A, T, and R where R is your Rest frame from which A & T accelerated away prior to gaining their current inertial states. Thus, both A & T have what you call “actual velocity” but A is leaving R faster than T is. The speed of A wrt R is such that the time dilation tick ratio is 1:2. (or 2: 4 which will be more convenient later so I may state it that way.)

There exists* some ONE speed of T wrt R such that the A:T tick ratio is 2:3 or to summarize the tick ratios thus far: A:R = 2:4 and A:T = 2:3 which can compactly be written A:T:R = 2:3:4. I will even put into words for you (and if still confused by the above, ignore those words and just start with these bold words):

For every 4 ticks of clocks in R there are 3 ticks of clocks in T and 2 ticks of clock in A.

Note that the speed of T wrt R is chosen to make A:T = 2:3 and that there is only one such speed. Your post 93 method tell how to find this speed and I gave your method in my prior post. (That part is quoted at end of this post again.)

However, the T:R ratio must be 3:4 and there is also only one such speed for which that is true. The method you agree to computed is the SR equations as T does have your “actual velocity” wrt the rest frame R. Thus we have two different “MacM” approved way to calculate the same speed. These two procedures do NOT give the same result. Thus you methods and theory are in self conflict.

This is so garbled I suspect not one person has deciphered this mess. I refuse to waste my time.

Either respond to my challenge and refute my falsification claim or stop posting.

 

[MacM]

This is a simple lie, that I have previously exposed in the following post:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2363220&postcount=1159

Absolutely false:

Originally Posted by MacM quoted by James R in 1159:"IF you travel 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then your clock has not changed tick rate ”

Posted by Jame R in 1159:"The second half of this statement you keep repeating doesn't follow from the first half.

An equivalent statement to yours is "if you travel the same distance in the same time, then your clock has not changed tick rate". No. If you travel the same distance in the same time, all you can say is that your speed was the same (speed = distance/time). It says nothing about the "tick rate" of your clock.

Considering that I have already stipulated that speed was the same what is your point. It mandates in fact that clock tick rates must be the same which is what I have claimed.

So you pretend that it does not show that the clock ticked at the same rate. Amazing but simply untrue. It shows in fact that the clock tick did not change. Thank you. If not please show us just how v = d/t remains the same when d changes but t doesn't. Go ahead genius.

Repeating yourself after you have been corrected amounts to trolling.

That works two ways. Assuming you have posted a correction is to assume you are correct. You assume to much. The challenge stands. I have already refuted your assertion that your statement is equivelent. See above. You conclude clock tick rate is not fixed by the relationship, I say it is. You are trolling posting the same false claim(s).

1 - That you have corrected me. When you have posted either lies or errors.

2 - That clock tick rate is not fixed by the relationship v = d/t Because if I post d =2 and t = 2 then v=1.

If I cut that in half such that d = 1 and t=1 then v = 1. v has not and cannot change. If I now repost this such that d = 1 and t = 1 then v = 1 and SR is falsified by that simple fact. Becaue v is only constant if t changes insynch with d.

If they accumulated time equally for the same trip, then the clocks would show the same final time. They do not. Therefore, we conclude that they can not have ticked at the same rate.

Ah, but you now post the assertion of the theory over black and white proof by diagram and mathematics that that assertion is not physically real. I have tried to teach you that reciting theory is not a proof of the theory. But then you have been a poor strudent.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
IF you travel 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the accumulated time, at the same speed then your clock has not changed tick rate ”

The second half of this statement you keep repeating doesn't follow from the first half.
An equivalent statement to yours is "if you travel the same distance in the same time, then your clock has not changed tick rate". No. If you travel the same distance in the same time, all you can say is that your speed was the same (speed = distance/time). It says nothing about the "tick rate" of your clock.

Relativity does not make the claim that MacM lies about. Therefore, MacM's lie does not falsify relativity.

MacM shows the case where the traveling twin returns in 1/2 the time recorded by the resting twin's clock and MacM says that is what SR says. IS THAT A LIE?

MacM shows the case where SR claims distance contract to 1/2 and that the traveling twin records 1/2 the time. IS THAT A LIE.

I further show that time recorded bythe resting twin clock will be inconsistant with the assertion of SR if viewed in real time physics and not just taken at face value because SR makes the claim.

Because I post evidence for a claim of falsification. IS THAT A LIE?

I suppose that is one way to insure nobody ever falsifies the theory because anybody that posts something that shows failure of SR it is a lie. I've also seen it claimed that to repeat one's view is trolling if he has been told something different by a mod. Never mind that you are repeating your view. So effectively you are trying to claim a superior position by fiat and not by content. Either accept my answer or you are trolling. Hmmmmm.

SORRY James R you'll have to do MUCH better than this. You can't just blow off the results of the diagrams by saying they disagree with the unsupported assertions of SR. Especially by posting nonsense about v = d/t and t isn't fixed to that relationship.

The spatial distance contraction claim is unsupported you know. Or do you have some empirical data to share with us showing length contraction is physically real?

:bugeye:

 

[James R]

MacM:

I further show that time recorded bythe resting twin clock will be inconsistant with the assertion of SR if viewed in real time physics and not just taken at face value because SR makes the claim.

You've shown no such thing.

Please set out the steps in your reasoning that you think proves that SR somehow gives results inconsistent with "real time physics".

I'll tell you where you're going wrong.

 

[CptBork]

I'll would have to do a lot of research if you don't post specific information on this because his work is quite volumous but had Einstein done what you now claim he did, there would never have been a Twin's Paradox" that lasted for over a decade.

It was too much trouble for you to bother reading Einstein's original paper? Section 4 specifically talks about this situation and clearly states that if two clocks start out synchronized at the same point, and one of them is accelerated and moved around before meeting back up with its partner, the non-accelerated partner registers the most ticks. As an example, he describes what the result would be for clocks on Earth at the poles and equator, assuming you could neglect the effects of gravity, i.e. if the clocks at these points are, aside from their rotational velocities, "under otherwise identical conditions" (Einstein's own words). All using purely SR reasoning, since it comes from the original SR paper itself. The only reason any sort of "paradox" or controversy remained around the issue is because other people had conceptual difficulties accepting ideas Einstein considered to be blatantly obvious and mathematically unambiguous. Einstein didn't need to do the same calculation from other inertial frames to show that the same result follows in these frames, as it was already built into the mathematical postulates on which the theory was constructed.

No, I did not say nor imply that at all. I said what I said which was:

"IF you take earth surface velocity as ve and orbit velocity as vo and assume relative velocity is vr = v0-ve and you use that relative velocity to compute time dilation between the clocks you will only get -5.8us/day. Which is an incorrect answer. "

So if by using SR properly I can show that, calculated from a series of inertial frames following the Earth-based rotating clock and referring only to the velocity of the orbital clock as measured by this Earth-based clock, I get a difference of -7.2us/day from motion, you will admit that your claims about ECI are incorrect, yes? If you answer in the affirmative, I'll post my calculation and you can try to find a flaw in it. First I gotta make sure you commit something on your end, before I spend any more of my own time on it.

 

[Billy T]

The following proof only uses two things MacM accepts or assert. They are:

(1) If frame A has accelerated away from resting frame R (has “actual velocity” in MacM's terms) then the time dilation of it calculated by standard SR equation is correct.
(2) If two frames, A & T, have both accelerated away from resting frame R (both have “actual velocity” in MacM's terms) then the time dilation of A wrt T is calculated as follows: Each is separately calculated using the speed wrt to R with the standard SR equation and then you subtracted these two separate results. (MacM's post 93 method, briefly stated.)

That work fine if there are only two frames, but consider three inertial frames, A, T & R. Both A & T have what MacM calls “actual velocity” as they were earlier at rest with R. A & T both accelerated away from R equally but T “went inertial” before A did so has less speed wrt R than A does now.
Now, in their inertial frames, these three frames have following time dilation “tick ratio”:

For every 4 ticks of clocks in R there are 3 ticks of clocks in T and 2 ticks of clocks in A.

I.e. The time dilation or tick rate ratio are: A:R = 2:4; A:T = 2:3; T:R = 3:4. First method (1) above sets the speed of frame A such that A:R = 2:4. Then the speed of T wrt R was chosen to make tick ratio A:T = 2:3 by method (2) above (MacM's post 93 method). There is only one such speed which I call S2, as it is calculated by method 2 above.

But your method (1) above can also be used to calculate the speed of frame T. I.e. the speed S1, calculated by method (1) above, is required to make the T:R = 3:4.
T has “actual velocity” and R was its prior rest frame, so method (1) applies.

Thus MacM has given two different methods, both using very non-linear equations, to calculate the speed of frame T, so S1 is not the same as S2. That is an internal self contradiction in you theory as frame T can only have one speed wrt to R.

MacM, you are making the extraordinary claim that >100,000 Ph.D. physicists, all accepting standard SR as valid, in the last 100 years are ALL wrong.*
This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence on your part, not a bunch of your inventions about “actual velocity” vs. “relative velocity” and the need to go back into history to find a “common rest frame,” CRF,” to calculate time dilations. Etc.
I.e. the burden of proof is on you MacM.
We do not need to prove your theory wrong, but it so easy to do that that I have three times now proved an internal conflict in your theory. (Posts 118, 198 and the above all show that your theory is self contradictory!)

SUMMARY: You need to show some error in the logic or math above to be taken seriously and then go further to show some equally clearly stated flaw in the standard SR (as James R requested in post 1175 below).

MacM:...Please set out the steps in your reasoning that you think proves that SR somehow gives results inconsistent with "real time physics".
I'll tell you where you're going wrong.

PS to MacM: Calling us names is not considered a proof your SR is correct.

--------------------
*Note that is not, as you assert, and "appeal to authority" - it is a simple statement of fact.

 

[MacM]

MacM:



You've shown no such thing.

Please set out the steps in your reasoning that you think proves that SR somehow gives results inconsistent with "real time physics".

I'll tell you where you're going wrong.

Unfortunately for you your state of denial doesn't change the reality in the diagrams and soundness of the principles in the text.

v = d/t is abaout as absolute as you can make it. You do not get equal 'v' unless you change both 'd' & 't' equally. This isn't higher math it is basic arithmatic and you can't handel it - :bugeye:


The probelem here is you have spent years arguing with me and calling me all sorts of names and now you have no rebuttal for what is clearly proof of falsification of your view.

Your simple denial of v = d/t is laughable.

 

[MacM]

It was too much trouble for you to bother reading Einstein's original paper? Section 4 specifically talks about this situation and clearly states that if two clocks start out synchronized at the same point, and one of them is accelerated and moved around before meeting back up with its partner, the non-accelerated partner registers the most ticks. As an example, he describes what the result would be for clocks on Earth at the poles and equator, assuming you could neglect the effects of gravity, i.e. if the clocks at these points are, aside from their rotational velocities, "under otherwise identical conditions" (Einstein's own words). All using purely SR reasoning, since it comes from the original SR paper itself. The only reason any sort of "paradox" or controversy remained around the issue is because other people had conceptual difficulties accepting ideas Einstein considered to be blatantly obvious and mathematically unambiguous. Einstein didn't need to do the same calculation from other inertial frames to show that the same result follows in these frames, as it was already built into the mathematical postulates on which the theory was constructed.

The problem frankly is that he said contridictary things as well. He also said each can claim to be at rest and the other has the veloicty and becomes dilated. That is what produced the twin paradox. People didn't just fabricate the paradox from a well stipulated and demonstrated mathematical model showing how one was dilated and the other not. It was in fact just the opposite he seemed to realish the idea that his view was "Counter Intuitive".

And yes I have no intention of going back and re-reading lengthy papers trying to find a purported statement that might or might not be there but might well just be your mis-interpretation or wishful thinking of what was actually said. It is incumbent upon you to post the specific quote you feel proves your position. Then it could be accepted or rejected. I will not do your leg work.

So if by using SR properly I can show that, calculated from a series of inertial frames following the Earth-based rotating clock and referring only to the velocity of the orbital clock as measured by this Earth-based clock, I get a difference of -7.2us/day from motion, you will admit that your claims about ECI are incorrect, yes? If you answer in the affirmative, I'll post my calculation and you can try to find a flaw in it. First I gotta make sure you commit something on your end, before I spend any more of my own time on it.

Actually no. I have already said I had no real interest in seeing an alternative calculation but for you to do so if you wished. I'll need to go back and review the ground rules I posted for making the challenge because I don't see any here.

I have said (as I had already so stated) that "Preferred" as used in this context means:

WEBSTER:

Preferred 4) to give preference or priority to

Please note that does NOT imply or state to the exclusion of.

However, my challenge is for you to demonstrate that you can properly predict and compute the time dilation of clocks "A" & "B" with no other information than they share a 0.6c relative velocity from your perspective (that perspective not being either "A" or "B").

As I have already stated I have no real interest in the possibility or not that other methods might be used in GPS. My statements have been that SR is not used. Further I have argued for orbit to be considered inertial such that SR might be used.

Some have argued against that stating it is undeder constant acceleration hence is non-inertial but the simple fact is it is just as inertial as SR is in a gravity field and as Einstein said we can use it if the affect is small enough to be ignored. So orbit is inertial. You seem to want to argue the other side of that debte as well.

OK. I hve gone back and recovered the rules:

Originally Posted by MacM:"I say if you can prove that you can correctly tell me the time dilation between two frames based on your view from a third frame where the relative velocity between those frames in your view is 0.6c or you can stipulate a relative velocity between two clocks, without knowing which one or both may have accelerated, and you can back that calculation with supporting empirical data showing correct predictions for both clocks and not mere SR mathematics then I will conceed my compaint against SR is falsified.

The floor is yours.

Please note this says nothing about GPS or the ECI that you just alleged above. The only variance I'll make to the challenge would be to allow reasonable change of the 0.6c stipulation but some other relavistic velocity could be used.

 

[MacM]

The following proof only uses two things MacM accepts or assert. They are:

(1) If frame A has accelerated away from resting frame R (has “actual velocity” in MacM's terms) then the time dilation of it calculated by standard SR equation is correct.

Finally correct.

(2) If two frames, A & T, have both accelerated away from resting frame R (both have “actual velocity” in MacM's terms) then the time dilation of A wrt T is calculated as follows: Each is separately calculated using the speed wrt to R with the standard SR equation and then you subtracted these two separate results. (MacM's post 93 method, briefly stated.)

Again finally correct.

That work fine if there are only two frames, but consider three inertial frames, A, T & R. Both A & T have what MacM calls “actual velocity” as they were earlier at rest with R. A & T both accelerated away from R equally but T “went inertial” before A did so has less speed wrt R than A does now.
Now, in their inertial frames, these three frames have following time dilation “tick ratio”:

For every 4 ticks of clocks in R there are 3 ticks of clocks in T and 2 ticks of clocks in A.

I.e. The time dilation or tick rate ratio are: A:R = 2:4; A:T = 2:3; T:R = 3:4. First method (1) above sets the speed of frame A such that A:R = 2:4. Then the speed of T wrt R was chosen to make tick ratio A:T = 2:3 by method (2) above (MacM's post 93 method). There is only one such speed which I call S2, as it is calculated by method 2 above.

But your method (1) above can also be used to calculate the speed of frame T. I.e. the speed S1, calculated by method (1) above, is required to make the T:R = 3:4.
T has “actual velocity” and R was its prior rest frame, so method (1) applies.

Thus MacM has given two different methods, both using very non-linear equations, to calculate the speed of frame T, so S1 is not the same as S2. That is an internal self contradiction in you theory as frame T can only have one speed wrt to R.

Somewhat more clear but your last assertion is very unclear. I think you are eluding to the fact that the computed time dilation using the correct MacM method disagrees with a velocity prediction using SR's velocity addition. In which case I agree it will not match but then that should be expected since the time dialtion predicted by velocity addition is not supported by empirical data.

That is you cannot expect an unsupported time dilation calculation based on velocity addition to agree with the velocity of actual time dilation based on true velocities.

In which case you attempt to prove your theory by reciting your theory. Using what is false results to try and falsify valid results.

I hope others can follow what I have just expressed.

MacM, you are making the extraordinary claim that >100,000 Ph.D. physicists, all accepting standard SR as valid, in the last 100 years are ALL wrong.*

And you seem to think appealing to authority makes you correct in which case mainstream science could NEVER evlove if that were true. All that matters is the correctness of the view and you are not by this post refuting my view. You are merely trying to assert the theory and not any empirically supported information.

This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence on your part, not a bunch of your inventions about “actual velocity” vs. “relative velocity” and the need to go back into history to find a “common rest frame,” CRF,” to calculate time dilations. Etc.
I.e. the burden of proof is on you MacM.
We do not need to prove your theory wrong, but it so easy to do that that I have three times now proved an internal conflict in your theory. (Posts 118, 198 and the above all show that your theory is self contradictory!)

Simple.

**************************************************
I claim as extraordinary proof that v = d/t and that for v to be symmetrical in any SR scenario one must change both d and t equally to maintain v constant.

It is clear that if that is the case then time dilation does not occur based on distance contraction because t automatically changes in direct proportion with d with no change in tick rate.

Given v = d/t where d = 2 and t=2 then v = 2/2 = 1 as a standard.

If clock time dilation occurs then the result is (given 0.6c) t=1, d = 2 and v= 2/1 = 2. This means as in Case 1 the traveler will arrive at d=2 in 1/2 the normal time but will compute that he traveled twice as fast and the resting clock will think his clock is dilated.

If you elect spatial distance contraction you get. d = 1 and t =1 such that the result is v = 1/1 = 1 because clock tick rate nor velocity changed. The result is that the traveler goes only 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the time and there is no time dilation because all clocks continue to tick in unison.

If you assert both, as SR does, then d = 1, t = 0.5 and v = 1/.5 = 2.

Since time dilation matches empirical data and length contraction does not then I choose time dilation to be physically real and contraction is falsified.

Keep in mind v = 2 is a computed value and not true velocity which is universal and doesn't change. I know that is to hard for you to wrap your head around but it is sound physics none the less..

SUMMARY: You need to show some error in the logic or math above to be taken seriously and then go further to show some equally clearly stated flaw in the standard SR (as James R requested in post 1175 below).


PS to MacM: Calling us names is not considered a proof your SR is correct.

No calling you names is labeling you just as you attempt to lable me. Proving SR false is seperate and done as above.

--------------------
*Note that is not, as you assert, and "appeal to authority" - it is a simple statement of fact.

Suggestive and implying they cannot all be wrong.

At one juncture in our history all men thought the earth was flat. Until only one first realized it was not.

At one juncture in our history all men thought the earth was at the center of the universe and everything rotated around us. Until one realized otherwise.

At one juncture in our history all men thought worms in a barrel of rain water were from spontaneous generation out of the water. Until one understood otherwise.

At one juncture in our history all men thought objects of different weights would fall at differnt speeds. Until one realized otherwise.

At one juncture in our history all people feared natural storms because it meant the Gods were angry until others realized otherwise.

SUMMARY:

My view is fully compatable with and supported by empirical data. Yours is not. End of debate. You lose.