Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[MacM]

(Reply intended for MacM)

Nope,

You have an extra word here.

SR says that if the travelling twin measures half the trip time, he also measures half the trip length. Travelling twin sees half the trip time and half the trip length as compared to what the stationary twin sees. So both space and time are contracted in this case. Perfectly consistent result.

There is your error.

Think man think.

1/2 distance in 1/2 time at constant velocity means the clock will accumulate that amount of time WITHOUT time dilation.

(Consider the following example:

Two twins set out in the usual fashion, one heading out in a rocket and the other remaining on Earth.

Relative to the Earth there is a beacon placed at rest at a fixed distance from Earth, which the travelling twin eventually passes.

Relative to the travelling twin, a beacon is placed at rest in the travelling twin's rest frame, in the opposite direction, such that this second beacon passes the Earth some time after the twin departs.

The trip length and trip time from Earth to Earth beacon will be measured by the travelling twin to be half as much as what Earth measures.

Stop here. You have no basis for that assumption. I know that is what SR proclaims but it is shown that cannot be the case because v = d/d is a priori axiom which SR cannot violate.

It is the mere declaration of 1/2 d, in 1/2 t at v that precludes the resting clock from accumulating adifferent amount of time.

(Conversely, the distance and time travelled by the twin's beacon to reach Earth will be measured by Earth to be half as much as what the twin measures. Reciprocity holds just fine here, and if the travelling twin reverses direction and returns to Earth, there's no ambiguity as to how their clocks will compare.

Totally false.

 

[CptBork]

All your v=d/t calculations are doing is establishing that from an observer's perspective, their own clocks and rulers appear to be functioning perfectly normally. That was never in contention. Each observer will correctly think that things are normal for them and everyone else's measurements are being distorted.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If it were not so sad you would be funny. You simply refuse to take off the blinders and wax out of your ears. I am not mis-representing SR.

SR says the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance, in 1/2 the time at a common velocity. It is that stipulation and physical FACT that precludes the claim by SR that the resting clock accumulates a different amount of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram

If you read that, learn how to draw the diagrams and then do the diagram for the motion of someone moving from (x,t)=0 to x=L and back at some speed v<c from the point of view of someone at rest at x=0 and then do the transformation to the frame of the person moving you'll find your claim that the two people will measure the same amount of time is not what SR says. And what SR says is what experiments measure. No flaw. Other than your understanding.

I am not responsible for SR's internal falicy.

You are, however, responsible for your own ignorance and inability to learn.

Your dependance upon the mathematics of SR is your failure.

My dependence on learning and coherent logical thought processes is my failure, yes that is a failure.

Concocting an arbitrary impossible physical relationship mathematically is not difficult and you choose to use your TS diagrams based on the very falicy of the theory then claim it proves I am wrong. What a joke.

Again, the fact I am having to tell you what SR says isn't because I blindly quote it but because you have failed to understand it.

For instance, suppose I said "Mac says 1+1=4. What an idiot! Look, 1+1=2!". Would you saying "No, I have never said that, you're attempting to correct a mistake of mine which I have never made!" be mindlessly repeating rhetoric or would it be simply you clarifying a mistake on my part on what I interpreted you to be saying? You have not understood what SR says. You can provide no reference for your claims, you simply have failed to correctly understand what SR predicts. I am trying to clarify this with you so that, even if you don't agree with SR, at least you know what it actually says. If you bothered to learn how to do space-time diagrams (if you know geometry and calculus it'll take you a total of about 3 minutes) you'll be able to see for yourself.

I have no problem with people saying "I think relativity is wrong" provided the reason they give it's obviously and trivially false.

I'm not impressed.

I'm surprised you're capable of any kind of emotion, basic coherent logic and rationality are obviously beyond you.

 

[MacM]

All your v=d/t calculations are doing is establishing that from an observer's perspective, their own clocks and rulers appear to be functioning perfectly normally. That was never in contention. Each observer will correctly think that things are normal for them and everyone else's measurements are being distorted.

This is not about what each observer sees. It is about basic physical relationships. The fact is if the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at a constant velocity then his clock did NOT dilate - PERIOD.

He and the resting twin BOTH ultimate agree his clock is dilated but it did not and cannot be due to length contraction but actual physical clock time dilation which is real in both frames. - PERIOD.

Continuing to recycle SR BS doesn't alter the facts at hand. Length contraction does not cause time dilation.

 

[Billy T]

... The fact is if the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at a constant velocity then his clock did NOT dilate - PERIOD.

Identical with:

The fact is if pigs are flying over head every day, then sales of umbrellas would greatly increase. Amazing what follows starting from a false premis.

MacM you still, despite being told many times, do not uderstand that you MUST specify which frame your statements apply to.
It is true that there is no time dilation in the frame of the traveling twin.
It is true that there is time dialation of his clocks in the frame of the stay at home twin.

 

[MacM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram

If you read that, learn how to draw the diagrams [?quote]

Why on earth would I care to waste time playing with a theory that is falsified at the most basic level.?

[and then do the diagram for the motion of someone moving from (x,t)=0 to x=L and back at some speed v<c from the point of view of someone at rest at x=0 and then do the transformation to the frame of the person moving you'll find your claim that the two people will measure the same amount of time is not what SR says.

Yes and that is why SR is falsified. The diagrams prove both clocks MUST remain in sync. The differential in accumulated time ONLY occurs from a dilated clock, not length contraction.

I keep trying to get you to understand that reciting the theory does not prove the theory. The trheory MUST match standard physical relationships.

And what SR says is what experiments measure.]

What do you not understand about the time-space merger is NOT required to produce those results. All is needed is a tick dilated clock.

[No flaw. Other than your understanding.

You sir are blind.

[You are, however, responsible for your own ignorance and inability to learn.

Like I have said before here this assertion assumes you are teaching and I wanted to learn what you were promoting. The simple truth is I do not need to learn I know what SR claims. I also know that it is false which is why I reject it. That is a leg up on you.

[My dependence on learning and coherent logical thought processes is my failure, yes that is a failure.

It would be nice if you actually could see and understand that is fact.

[Again, the fact I am having to tell you what SR says isn't because I blindly quote it but because you have failed to understand it.

Like I said I have recited SR numerous time and I know what it says. I also know that what it says is invalid and I therefore have enough sense to reject it and not keep repeating it's error.

[For instance, suppose I said "Mac says 1+1=4. What an idiot! Look, 1+1=2!". Would you saying "No, I have never said that, you're attempting to correct a mistake of mine which I have never made!" be mindlessly repeating rhetoric or would it be simply you clarifying a mistake on my part on what I interpreted you to be saying?

In that case you would be correcting because3 1+1 is known by mathematical process to = 2. Just as I am correcting you because v = d/t is a firm physical relationship which you violate by accepting SR's BS.

[You have not understood what SR says. You can provide no reference for your claims, you simply have failed to correctly understand what SR predicts.

Absolutely false and is only based on the fact that I reject your claim that SR is valid. Your reliance on what SR claims is not proof or support for the theory. You don't seem to get that.

[ I am trying to clarify this with you so that, even if you don't agree with SR, at least you know what it actually says.

I have quoted and properly computed numerous SR scenarios; including velocity addition scenarios. For you to say I do not know what SR says is simply preposterous. It may make you feel good or superior but it seems just the opposite may be true since I have ssen through the fog and found that SR is indeed internally inconsistant and therefore falsified.

The bottom line is that what SR claims is physically incorrect and impossible. Mathematically is a different issue since there is no permanent physical change advocated for length contraction it has no physical affect and it does not matter that it is not real.

[If you bothered to learn how to do space-time diagrams (if you know geometry and calculus it'll take you a total of about 3 minutes) you'll be able to see for yourself.

Like I have tried to make you understand I have no objection to the mathematics. They have utility and predict time dilation correctly but that does not make the length contraction real because a physically tick dilated clock produces the same empericial result without length contraction.

[I have no problem with people saying "I think relativity is wrong" provided the reason they give it's obviously and trivially false.

You have not in any manner overturned the physical v = d/t relationship which precludes the time dilated result advocated by SR for a length contracted frame. The falsification satnds.

[I'm surprised you're capable of any kind of emotion, basic coherent logic and rationality are obviously beyond you.

Self-serving babble.

 

[MacM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_diagram

If you read that, learn how to draw the diagrams

Why on earth would I care to waste time playing with a theory that is falsified at the most basic level.?

[and then do the diagram for the motion of someone moving from (x,t)=0 to x=L and back at some speed v<c from the point of view of someone at rest at x=0 and then do the transformation to the frame of the person moving you'll find your claim that the two people will measure the same amount of time is not what SR says.

Yes and that is why SR is falsified. My diagrams prove both clocks MUST remain in sync with the resting frame in a moving length contracted frame. The differential in accumulated time ONLY occurs from a dilated clock, not length contraction.

I keep trying to get you to understand that reciting the theory does not prove the theory. The theory MUST match standard physical relationships.

And what SR says is what experiments measure.]

What do you not understand about the time-space merger is NOT required to produce those results. All is needed is a tick dilated clock.

[No flaw. Other than your understanding.

You sir are blind.

[You are, however, responsible for your own ignorance and inability to learn.

Like I have said before here this assertion assumes you are teaching and I wanted to learn what you were promoting. The simple truth is I do not need to learn I know what SR claims. I also know that it is false which is why I reject it. That is a leg up on you.

[My dependence on learning and coherent logical thought processes is my failure, yes that is a failure.

It would be nice if you actually could see and understand that is fact.

[Again, the fact I am having to tell you what SR says isn't because I blindly quote it but because you have failed to understand it.

Like I said I have recited SR numerous times and I know what it says. I also know that what it says is invalid and I therefore have enough sense to reject it and not keep repeating it's error.

[For instance, suppose I said "Mac says 1+1=4. What an idiot! Look, 1+1=2!". Would you saying "No, I have never said that, you're attempting to correct a mistake of mine which I have never made!" be mindlessly repeating rhetoric or would it be simply you clarifying a mistake on my part on what I interpreted you to be saying?

In that case you would be correcting because 1+1 is known by mathematical process to = 2. Just as I am correcting you because v = d/t is a firm physical relationship which you violate by accepting SR's unsupported BS.
Don't tell me about all the empirical data out there becasue that data has nothing to do with or provide support for the arguement about length contraction.

[You have not understood what SR says. You can provide no reference for your claims, you simply have failed to correctly understand what SR predicts.

Absolutely false and is only based on the fact that I reject your claim that SR is valid. Your reliance on what SR claims is not proof or support for the theory. You don't seem to get that.

[ I am trying to clarify this with you so that, even if you don't agree with SR, at least you know what it actually says.

I have quoted SR predictions and properly computed numerous SR scenarios; including velocity addition scenarios. For you to say I do not know what SR says is simply preposterous. It may make you feel good or superior but it seems just the opposite may be true since I have ssen through the fog and found that SR is indeed internally inconsistant and therefore falsified.

The bottom line is that what SR claims is physically incorrect and impossible. Mathematically is a different issue since there is no permanent physical change advocated for length contraction it has no physical affect upon which to detect the error such that it does not matter that it is not real.

[If you bothered to learn how to do space-time diagrams (if you know geometry and calculus it'll take you a total of about 3 minutes) you'll be able to see for yourself.

Like I have tried to make you understand I have no objection to the mathematics. They have utility and predict time dilation correctly but that does not make the length contraction component real because a physically tick dilated clock produces the same empericial result without length contraction.

[I have no problem with people saying "I think relativity is wrong" provided the reason they give it's obviously and trivially false.

You have not in any manner overturned the physical v = d/t relationship which precludes the time dilated result advocated by SR for a length contracted frame. The falsification stands.

[I'm surprised you're capable of any kind of emotion, basic coherent logic and rationality are obviously beyond you.

Self-serving babble.

 

[MacM]

Identical with:

The fact is if pigs are flying over head every day, then sales of umbrellas would greatly increase. Amazing what follows starting from a false premis.

So you are a beliver that v = d/t is a false premis. WOW.

IF that is the best you can do you sir are in trouble.

MacM you still, despite being told many times, do not uderstand that you MUST specify which frame your statements apply to.
It is true that there is no time dilation in the frame of the traveling twin.
It is true that there is time dialation of his clocks in the frame of the stay at home twin.

No sir you do not understand. No time dilation means no time dilation period - physical reality is NOT a frame dependant issue. v = d/t mandates that the traveling clock tick rate is the same as it is in the rest frame because he travels 1/2 the distance in 1/2 time he would had he gone the full distance.

If he went the same full distance then his clock will match the resting twin's clock. Therefore there has been NO time dilation in either frame.

Since his clock cannot dilate it MUST therefore be in sync with the resting frame (which my diagrams correctly show) and hence the SR claim that the resting twin's clock accumulates more time is falsified.

If I were you I would forget about flying pigs and think about basic physics for a while. But then believing in flying pigs isn't far from believing in SR I guess.

But then I guess one must be a bit smarter to understand that v= 0.5d / 0.5t = d/t. I really thought you at least knew some algebra.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Why on earth would I care to waste time playing with a theory that is falsified at the most basic level.?

Ah the "I don't learn it because it's wrong and its wrong because I can't do it" logic. Excellent open mindedness.

My diagrams prove both clocks MUST remain in sync with the resting frame in a moving length contracted frame.

Then your diagrams aren't SR diagrams.

I keep trying to get you to understand that reciting the theory does not prove the theory. The theory MUST match standard physical relationships.

SR predicts observed results. SR does not predict unobserved results.

You really can't grasp how you attacking something which SR has never said doesn't falsify SR?

What do you not understand about the time-space merger is NOT required to produce those results. All is needed is a tick dilated clock.

And you've gotten the predictions of SR about tick dilated clocks wrong.

Reread that a couple of times.

You sir are blind.

At least I've actually understood what SR says. You have admitted you don't do any calculus so you've not done any quantitative works on SR. You are also unfamiliar with space-time diagrams. As such you basically admit to not having any of the tools needed to derive quantitative predictions from relativity yourself. And low and behold you've gotten conclusions which SR doesn't. Hardly surprising.

The simple truth is I do not need to learn I know what SR claims. I also know that it is false which is why I reject it.

So you know a theory which is generally discussed in terms of mathematics you admit you've never done better than someone with a PhD in a relativity based subject? Yes, that's good logic.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a single reference where a book or paper on relativity says SR says as you claim it does. Until you can provide such a reference or actually derive the result in SR, rather than simply claim SR says it, your whining is just "I claim SR is wrong, because I say so".

I have recited SR numerous times and I know what it says

You haven't 'recited SR', you've given your interpretation of it. And every single person who has hands on experience with SR via graduate level learning says that isn't what SR says. Nor can you provide a reference where someone of graduate level learning shows SR says what you say it says. Does this not suggest to you that perhaps you're wrong? You admit to having little or not mathematical experience and you've never done a relativity course. Why, oh why, do you think you simply repeating your rhetoric of "I know SR better than anyone and I know it says..." is anything more than your blind faith in yourself?

You complain I'm blind yet I can and have shown working knowledge of the relevant physics. You have not done a single actual SR calculation and you've ignored anyone who has. How can you possibly think you're in some privileged position of knowledge!?

Just as I am correcting you because v = d/t is a firm physical relationship which you violate by accepting SR's unsupported BS.

You are repeating your blind, incorrect, rhetoric again. Can't provide a reference? Thought not.

I have quoted SR predictions and properly computed numerous SR scenarios

No you haven't and no you haven't. Not one person who has any education in SR has or will agree with you.

For you to say I do not know what SR says is simply preposterous

You think the standard mathematics of SR, which I have taught to undergraduates in their 1st years is 'higher mathematics'. It's practically high school stuff! This would suggest you have no experience of SR because you're unfamiliar with basic Freshman work. And this thread is proof you don't know SR. Tell you what, why don't you prove you can do SR. How about I give you the homework sheet to the first course in SR I did at uni and you do a few of them. Go on, put your maths where your mouth is. What do you say?

You have not in any manner overturned the physical v = d/t relationship which precludes the time dilated result advocated by SR for a length contracted frame. The falsification stands.

You have failed to apply the Lorentz transform properly. The falsification is invalidated.

Self-serving babble.

Next time just replace your entire post with that sentence in quotation marks. It'll serve the same purpose and be on the same level of discourse. You make absolutely no effort to actually develop your claims or back up your self-delusion based claims you can actually do any SR. People like myself or Billy or James have shown we can, we put our knowledge where our mouths are. Your posts are devoid of such things, you simply say "No, I know I'm right so why should I check!".

Please explain to me why that isn't blind self serving rhetoric from you? For instance, if I said "I don't need to check, I know SR is right!" you'd say I'm dishonest or blind or self serving. Explain why you saying precisely the same about your views isn't any of those things. God I hope you don't have kids.

 

[Billy T]

... If he went the same full distance then his clock will match the resting twin's clock. ...

Yes, but he traveled a lesser distance so it does not. Your premis is false, probably because you do not understand even what SR states. As AlphaNumneric has just pointed out that is to be expected as you do not have the educational tools to follow SR theory, analysis or drawings.

It is very much like the cosmic ray muons, which for Earthlings travel down thru > 100,000 feet of atmosphere at nearly the speed of light. Yet for the cosmic rays, the trip thru the entire atmospher was only a few dozen meters thick.

Thus most of them make it before they decay as they are traveling at near the speed of light.

BTW That is an experimental fact - confirmed for nearly 100 years now by the high altitude first balloons carring photographic plates to record the high altitude flux (which is not much greater than at ground level). What is your latest invention trying to otherwise explain these obvious facts, confirming SR's predicted contraction of the "rest frame space" for the traveler passing rapidly thru it?

 

[CptBork]

This is not about what each observer sees. It is about basic physical relationships. The fact is if the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time at a constant velocity then his clock did NOT dilate - PERIOD.

Yes it did dilate, otherwise he wouldn't only record 1/2 the time recorded by Earth. There is also a space contraction, which is why the travelling twin also records 1/2 the trip length that the Earth records, whereas the ratio of distance/time remains the same in both frames, hence guaranteeing the reciprocity of velocity. James R already demonstrated how the constancy of light speed mathematically requires a length contraction. We already know from experiment that SR correctly predicts time dilation in flat space, so if observers didn't also see spatial contractions, $$c$$ would not be a universal constant.

Now I know you claimed $$c$$ is not a universal constant in GR, but in fact it is, and you should refrain from making further misinformed statements about GR until you've spent some time actually learning it. A year ago in a completely different topic, I myself pointed out that a beam of light falling into a black hole comes to a complete halt at the event horizon (as seen from the outside). Yet an observer moving in a local frame with the beam of light still sees it moving at $$c$$ even as they cross the event horizon, as long as all measurements are local. The local value of $$c$$ is the same for all observers in all reference frames. Hence indeed, length contraction is an absolute necessity to match our experimental results.

He and the resting twin BOTH ultimate agree his clock is dilated but it did not and cannot be due to length contraction but actual physical clock time dilation which is real in both frames. - PERIOD.

No sir, I'll take physical measurement over MacM's ill-informed intuition any day of the week. Times and distances between events in Earth's rest frame are contracted as seen by the travelling twin, and times and distances between events in the twin's rest frame are contracted as seen by Earth. Give me one single physical situation where this basic fact of Special Relativity leads to a contradiction with known observations, or just one single example of how this statement would produce a mathematical contradiction in SR.

Your attempt to use ECI as an example is a total failure in this regard, as my calculations show the results you claim to be false. The rules of SR can be applied with equal validity in a completely reciprocal manner, and whether you treat the Earth or the orbiting satellite as being at rest in a given moment, the time dilation results are exactly the same from either POV. I'm ready to post my calculations anytime you want, but you seem too frightened to challenge them or post your own.

 

[MacM]

Ah the "I don't learn it because it's wrong

Your assumption that I need to learn is baseless. You don';t like that I will not become a convert and aagreewith your nonsense. That does not mean I need to learn . It dould just as well mean you need to learn.

and its wrong because I can't do it" logic.

Consideering tht I have posted hundreds of properly stipulated scenarios and provided correct calculations including velocity addtion makes thsi comment self-serving BS on your part. It is baseless and in error.

Then your diagrams aren't SR diagrams.

Of course not. They are diagrams of what SR says and what real physics mandates and they show SR is internally inconsistant physically but not mathematically.

SR predicts observed results. SR does not predict unobserved results.

Good I would like to see you post empirical data demonstrating the obsevation of length (distance) contraction.

You really can't grasp how you attacking something which SR has never said doesn't falsify SR?

Please post what I have said in my proof that SR doesn't say other than the conclusion of the evidence. My diagrams represent the claim that the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance and accumulates 1/2 the time at a constant velocity.

SR claims that during that period he has traveled twoice as far and accumualted twice the amount of time. My diagrams and text show that should the traveling twin continue to go the full distance that he will accumulated the same amount of time as the resting twin.

Hence clocks ticks per mile must be the same in both frames which means when the trveling twin returns bothv clocks MUST display the same amount of time.

That of course is NOT whatSR claims but that is the failure of SR to be consistant internally. It claims time dilation and none exists when claiming length contractoin.

And you've gotten the predictions of SR about tick dilated clocks wrong.

I'm afradi your comment is hardly good evidence. You must give specific examples of some error in computation.

At least I've actually understood what SR says. You have admitted you don't do any calculus so you've not done any quantitative works on SR. You are also unfamiliar with space-time diagrams. As such you basically admit to not having any of the tools needed to derive quantitative predictions from relativity yourself. And low and behold you've gotten conclusions which SR doesn't. Hardly surprising.

Self-serving babble. This issue boils down to 3rd grade arithmatic and your high math education has no bearing on this issue.

So you know a theory which is generally discussed in terms of mathematics you admit you've never done better than someone with a PhD in a relativity based subject? Yes, that's good logic.

You can't understand the simple algebra of v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t. That is good logic.

I'm still waiting for you to provide a single reference where a book or paper on relativity says SR says as you claim it does. Until you can provide such a reference or actually derive the result in SR, rather than simply claim SR says it, your whining is just "I claim SR is wrong, because I say so".

You must state what I claim it says that it doesn't say (other than the falsification conslusion). And it is you that claim SR is correct because it and I say so. You have not addressed the reality of v = d/t.

You haven't 'recited SR', you've given your interpretation of it. And every single person who has hands on experience with SR via graduate level learning says that isn't what SR says. Nor can you provide a reference where someone of graduate level learning shows SR says what you say it says. Does this not suggest to you that perhaps you're wrong? You admit to having little or not mathematical experience and you've never done a relativity course. Why, oh why, do you think you simply repeating your rhetoric of "I know SR better than anyone and I know it says..." is anything more than your blind faith in yourself?

Again you are making aseertions here without giving any specifics. What specifically do you claim I claim it says that it doesn't?

You complain I'm blind yet I can and have shown working knowledge of the relevant physics.

Don't puff up to much it is bad for the heart. Relevant physics is v = d/t. Can you provide a basis to ignore it physically?

You have not done a single actual SR calculation and you've ignored anyone who has. How can you possibly think you're in some privileged position of knowledge!?

What calculations do you think alter the conclusion? I admit I do not do the space-time interval stuff,etc but I do and have done plenty of time dialtion, length contraction and veloicty addition calculations.

So your statment is to broad but more importantly it is irrelevant since the error in SR is at the most basic physics level, not in it's mathematics. It is that the mathematics are not based on sound physics.

You are repeating your blind, incorrect, rhetoric again. Can't provide a reference? Thought not.

You are reciting SR again inspite of the effort I have made to teach you reciting a theory does not prove the theory. It is you that seem to now want to just post personal attacks and ignore the physics issue.

No you haven't and no you haven't. Not one person who has any education in SR has or will agree with you.[/quote]

Funny, I belong to NPA a group of around 1,500 educated persons, including physicists and historically even a Nobel winner that reject SR. So your statement is self-serving babble and flat wrong.

You think the standard mathematics of SR, which I have taught to undergraduates in their 1st years is 'higher mathematics'. It's practically high school stuff!

No i hven't agreed that you teach higher mathematics I have said SR has higher mathematics which I don't do. You continue to try and put words in my mouth and I won't let you.

This would suggest you have no experience of SR because you're unfamiliar with basic Freshman work. And this thread is proof you don't know SR.

Tell you what you just post proof that v = d/t is invalid and I'll conceed. Otehrwise button your lip because you are wasting our time.

Tell you what, why don't you prove you can do SR. How about I give you the homework sheet to the first course in SR I did at uni and you do a few of them. Go on, put your maths where your mouth is. What do you say?

How about you refute my falsification. Doing the SR math proves nothing. One has to turn a blind eye to thephysical reality and just for the hell of it crunch some numbers. I have better things to do. Like continuing to write my book which hopefully will be out soon. Not that I'm semi-retired and am looking at mortality I'm going to finish what I started decades ago.

You have failed to apply the Lorentz transform properly. The falsification is invalidated.

As I have attempted to teach you this is not about the mathematical process. Yes you can produce SR results and yes they can predict correctly but what you fail to understand is that lorentz transformaton is nothing but blind mathematifcs and it cares not if parts of it's assumtions are physically real or not.

Further one gets the same empirical time dilation results without length contraction.

Next time just replace your entire post with that sentence in quotation marks. It'll serve the same purpose and be on the same level of discourse. You make absolutely no effort to actually develop your claims or back up your self-delusion based claims you can actually do any SR. People like myself or Billy or James have shown we can, we put our knowledge where our mouths are. Your posts are devoid of such things, you simply say "No, I know I'm right so why should I check!".

It is you that refuse to do your home work. Now stop the personal attacks and negative innuendo and show your stuff refute the falsification.

Please explain to me why that isn't blind self serving rhetoric from you? For instance, if I said "I don't need to check, I know SR is right!" you'd say I'm dishonest or blind or self serving. Explain why you saying precisely the same about your views isn't any of those things. God I hope you don't have kids.

1 - Because I have put forth my claim and leave it for you or anybody to refute. Until you do it stands. It is you that simply want to quote the SR predictions even though there is no empirical data in over 100 years to support the claims about length (Distance) contraction.

As to having kids. (3) sons. (8) grand children. One grandson with a 165 IQ (runs n the family I guess - and two great grand kids just around the corner. So up yours.

You can either start to address the issue and drop these personal attacks or I will just blow you off. I'm not wasting any more time correcting your personal BS.

 

[James R]

MacM:

You've finally flipped your lid and are really off with the fairies.

You believe that the definition of constant velocity (v=d/t) falsifies the special theory of relativity. And you also believe that no physicist in 100 years has noticed that supposedly obvious fact.

You're clearly nuts.

 

[MacM]

Yes, but he traveled a lesser distance so it does not.

Correct but it demonstrates CORRECTLY that his clock and the resting clock are ticking in synch. WHICH MEANS WHEN THE TWIN RETURNS BOTH CLOCKS MUST DISPLAY THE SAME ACCUMULATED TIME AND THE CLAIM BY SR THAT THE RESTING CLOCK HAS ACCUMULATED MORE TIME IS FALSE.

What is so difficult about that for you to understand?

Your premis is false, probably because you do not understand even what SR states. As AlphaNumneric has just pointed out that is to be expected as you do not have the educational tools to follow SR theory, analysis or drawings.

And you nor Alpha seem to be able to properly address the 3rd grade arithmatic of v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t. Education has nothing to do with this issue. Doing SR math has nothing to do with this issue. Math is not the problem with SR it is incorrect underlying physics that is the problem.

Your math cares less if physics are real, it is nothing more than a process based on ssumption and it is those assumption that are flawed.

It is very much like the cosmic ray muons, which for Earthlings travel down thru > 100,000 feet of atmosphere at nearly the speed of light. Yet for the cosmic rays, the trip thru the entire atmospher was only a few dozen meters thick.

Thus most of them make it before they decay as they are traveling at near the speed of light.

BTW That is an experimental fact - confirmed for nearly 100 years now by the high altitude first balloons carring photographic plates to record the high altitude flux (which is not much greater than at ground level). What is your latest invention trying to otherwise explain these obvious facts, confirming SR's predicted contraction of the "rest frame space" for the traveler passing rapidly thru it?

Here we go again. Cosmic Muon's. Discussed hundreds of times and pointed out:

1 - This is not a test in a controlled envviornment.

2 - You have no data indicating how if at all motion through a gravity field or magnetic field might affect the muons.

3 - The results are not challenged they fit my own view but that does NOT include the spatial contrction.

4 - You once again seem to choose to ignore thec recent study that found that muon statiscs show an ansitrophy that was determined to make muon life more dependant on their motion to the CMB than to the earth.

That they concluded cosmic muon statistics were better matrched to an absolute veloicty to the CMB than relative veloicty to the earth..

Not sure why you think you cn just keep dumping this crap into the thread and not be corrected.

Now I'm telling you the sme thing. either address the physics issue or bug off.

 

[MacM]

Yes it did dilate, otherwise he wouldn't only record 1/2 the time recorded by Earth.

Your first of many errors I'm afraid. You think just because his clock redords less time then it was dilated. But you base that on the false assumption that SR is correct and that this time is in comparison to a resting clock which has accumulated more time.

Now the resting clock will have accumulaed more time but what I show is it is due to the clock becoming physically tick dilated and not contractions of distance.

If you pulled your head out of that dark smally place you would have noted that the claim of no time dialtion is for a claim of distance contraction. Not that there is no time dilation - Shsssh :bugeye:

Now I know you claimed $$c$$ is not a universal constant in GR, but in fact it is, and you should refrain from making further misinformed statements about GR until you've spent some time actually learning it. A year ago in a completely different topic, I myself pointed out that a beam of light falling into a black hole comes to a complete halt at the event horizon (as seen from the outside). Yet an observer moving in a local frame with the beam of light still sees it moving at $$c$$ even as they cross the event horizon, as long as all measurements are local. The local value of $$c$$ is the same for all observers in all reference frames. Hence indeed, length contraction is an absolute necessity to match our experimental results.[./quote]

This is irrelevant and off topic.

I posted Einstein's own statments where he stated the invariance could not be considered to be unlimited that SR is only valid in absence of gravity. I'll not debate this any further because it is off topic and irrelevant.

No sir, I'll take physical measurement over MacM's ill-informed intuition any day of the week.

So then you have measured length contraction. I hadn't heard.:shrug: What a joke.

Times and distances between events in Earth's rest frame are contracted as seen by the travelling twin, and times and distances between events in the twin's rest frame are contracted as seen by Earth.

I remind you reciting SR does not prove SR. You must overturn the basic physical relationship of v= d/t.

Give me one single physical situation where this basic fact of Special Relativity leads to a contradiction with known observations, or just one single example of how this statement would produce a mathematical contradiction in SR.

You really do not listen very well. I have repeatedly said SR is internally consistant mathematically. But what you fail to understasnd is that mathematics is blind and is nothing more than a process based on assumptions.

Your assumptions about length contraction are wron. Time dialtion occurs but only as a result of click tick dilation. My diagrams and tex prove that fact. Given only distance contraction time dilation does not occur and the conclusions of SR are not supported.

Your attempt to use ECI as an example is a total failure in this regard, as my calculations show the results you claim to be false. The rules of SR can be applied with equal validity in a completely reciprocal manner, and whether you treat the Earth or the orbiting satellite as being at rest in a given moment, the time dilation results are exactly the same from either POV.

Then I say you are using a format that precludes reciprocity which is inherent in a mere relative velocity view. I have noted previously that when you apply the math correctly you void SR and assume who has actual veloicty.

Or do you have enough brass gonades to claim that reciprocity actually exists and earth's clocks tick slower the orbit clocks considering ONLY velocity.? I refer to the red section above. If you do then we are finsihed here because that is outright nonsense and you are a complete waste of time..

I'm ready to post my calculations anytime you want, but you seem too frightened to challenge them or post your own.

I've posted the only thing I will be posting. I've falsified SR what more do you want.

Go ahead and post your math. It may or may not be valid but for certain it is irrelevant and I'll not waste time arguing about it.

As I've told the others either get with the program or get out of the way.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

You've finally flipped your lid and are really off with the fairies.

You believe that the definition of constant velocity (v=d/t) falsifies the special theory of relativity. And you also believe that no physicist in 100 years has noticed that supposedly obvious fact.

You're clearly nuts.

Really so you have finally understood. I doubt it. You do realise I hope that this post does not alter the facts on the table.

A CLOCK THAT ACCUMULATES 30 MINUTES GOING HALF WAY ON A TRIP THAT SHOULD TAKE 1 HOUR IS TICKING NORMALLY.

Therfore if you like it or not it and the cresting clock are ticking in unison.

If you diaagree then post just how that is accomplished physically not just using SR math or ST diagrams.

SR is internally consistant mathematically but inconsistant physically. Since you believe in and deal only with the math you don't seem to realize that math is blind and simple follow a process based on assumption made at the input.

Math can't tell or even care if those assumptions are valid. My falsification is in the physics assumption or declarations in SR not the mathematics.

The same goes to you stop the personal attacks and negative innuendo and post some relevant physics rrebuttal to the v = d/t issue.

 

[James R]

Really so you have finally understood. I doubt it. You do realise I hope that this post does not alter the facts on the table.

A CLOCK THAT ACCUMULATES 30 MINUTES GOING HALF WAY ON A TRIP THAT SHOULD TAKE 1 HOUR IS TICKING NORMALLY.

How do you know the trip "should" take 1 hour?

In the twin paradox, depending on whose clock you use the SAME trip might take 1 year, 1 day, 1 hour or any other amount of time.

Get it?

 

[MacM]

How do you know the trip "should" take 1 hour?

In the twin paradox, depending on whose clock you use the SAME trip might take 1 year, 1 day, 1 hour or any other amount of time.

Get it?

Because the stipulation for that particular trip was stipulated to be a 1 hour trip accordfing to the resting observer.

GET IT? Shsssh

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your assumption that I need to learn is baseless.

Other than every single person who has done SR says you've got your claims about it wrong.

Consideering tht I have posted hundreds of properly stipulated scenarios and provided correct calculations including velocity addtion makes thsi comment self-serving BS on your part. It is baseless and in error.

Except you've done no Lorentz transforms.

My diagrams represent the claim that the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance and accumulates 1/2 the time at a constant velocity.

Except your diagrams aren't those of SR as you admit you don't plan on learning the Minkowski diagrams so you can't have done them in your claims. Simple logic, by your own admission you haven't done SR diagrams.

You can't understand the simple algebra of v = 0.5d/0.5t = d/t. That is good logic.

And you haven't done the Lorentz transform about how that clock will compare to someone whose been at rest the entire time.

Funny, I belong to NPA a group of around 1,500 educated persons, including physicists and historically even a Nobel winner that reject SR. So your statement is self-serving babble and flat wrong.

Creationists tried that "Look at this list of people who disagree" line with evolution. See Project Steve. Science isn't a popularity contest, you haven't provided anything other than whining.

1 - Because I have put forth my claim and leave it for you or anybody to refute.

And I've put forth my comments, Billy and James have put forth their calculations and leave it to your to retort, which you refuse. See, your own logic works against you.

As to having kids. (3) sons. (8) grand children.

I pity them. Do you tell them you're superior to all physicists in the world, that you've known for decades they are in error but you've just not gotten around to revealing your work to the world? Or do you conceal your egotistical claims a little because you know it makes you look a prat?

One grandson with a 165 IQ

And? IQs are notorious for testing whether you think like the test's author (anyone who knows a bit of maths knows any answer is correct for 'What is the next number in the sequence'). I've had results of 173 in a test before, I discarded it immediately as worthless. And how does a relative's IQ have any relevance to your claims? You could have an IQ of 8 trillion but you admit you have no experience or knowledge of relevant physics and maths, haven't done calculus in decades and you're unable to give a single reference for your claims. Plenty of clever people have been wrong, having a large IQ (or being related to someone with a large IQ) doesn't make you instantly right or we'd still be stuck in the stone age believing in the Fire God in the volcano.

So just to check, no reference, no Lorentz transform in your claims, no support at all. Yep, that must make your kids so proud of you.

 

[MacM]

Other than every single person who has done SR says you've got your claims about it wrong.

Now that includes a lot of people. I rather have my doubts you know them all. In fact I know several myself and they happen to disagree with you.

Of course this is not a physics response but more self-serving negative innuendo.

As I told you in the last message I will not continue to play this game. Either respond properly to the v = d/t issue or get lost.