Mac's Final Relativity Thread

[James R]

MacM:

FAIL again!

You said you'd post examples of where I have contradicted myself etc., but you only posted things other people have written.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special_Relativity/Simultaneity,_time_dilation_and_length_contraction

More about time dilation
The term "time dilation" is applied to the way that observers who are moving relative to you record fewer clock ticks between events than you. In special relativity this is not due to properties of the clocks, it is due to shorter distances between events along an observer's path through spacetime.

This is an inaccurate and potentially misleading statement. Besides, you don't believe it anyway. Once again you are quoting something you don't believe in as authority. How strange.

So James R is once again proven a flip-flopper, distorter or liar.

This is the first time I have ever sighted the source you just quoted. I did not write it. I did not rely on it. Therefore it is impossible that I have flip-flopped about this, distorted it or lied about it.

You will now apologise to me.

http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/theory/relativity.html
Length Contraction
Instead of analyzing the motion of the tau from our frame of reference, we could ask what the tau would see in its reference frame. Its half-life in its reference frame is 3.05 x 10-13 s. This does not change. The tau goes nowhere in this frame.
How far would an observer, sitting in the tau rest frame, see an observer in our laboratory frame move while the tau lives?
We just calculated that the tau would travel 1.8 mm in our frame of reference. Surely we would expect the observer in the tau frame to see us move the same distance relative to the tau particle. Not so says the tau-frame observer -- you only moved 1.8 mm/gamma = 0.09 mm relative to me. This is length contraction.
How long did the tau particle live according to the observer in the tau frame? We can rearrange d = v x t to read t = d/v. Here we use the same speed, Because the speed of the observer in the lab relative to the tau is just equal to (but in the opposite direction) of the speed of the tau relative to the observer in the lab, so we can use the same speed. So time = 0.09 x 10-3 m/(3 x 108)m/sec = 3.0 x 10-13 sec. This is the half-life of the tau as seen in its rest frame, just as it should be!

There is nothing wrong with any of this, but I wonder why you are relying on it, seeing as you don't believe a word of it. Note that it talks about length contraction, which you do not believe in. It also talks about time dilation, which apparently you now no longer believe in either since you think all clocks always tick at the same rate.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continually quoting a theory you believe is wrong as somehow "proving" your nutty ideas. You're off with the fairies in la la land.

So length contraction is asserted to cause loss of accumulated time in the tau frame contrary to James R's flip-flop that length contraction is not associated with time dilation.

I never said length contraction causes a "loss of accumulated time" in any frame. Length contraction is a separate effect from time dilation.

I note again that I have PROVEN in a separate thread that length contraction and time dilation both follow from the postulates of special relativity. You can't have one without the other.

Oh, and 1+1=2 still does not disprove relativity.

 

[MacM]

Congratulations MacM you almost* got it right (except for the red word)*. Yes the high speed traveling twin, TT, did make a shorter trip (Even though he did turn arround at the agreed point as in his frame the start-to-turnaround distance is less for the TT than for his "stay at home" brother. (That distance was contracted for the TT.)

The "stay at home" brother of course understands what happened differently. He saw his brother, the TT, turn around correctly where they agreed and explains the fact that TT is younger by fact that all his clocks (including heart beats) are advancing time more slowly.

Exactly the same story for the cosmic ray muons -They travel thru a very contracted atmosphere and we, in the same frame as that atmosphere, understand them reaching Earth's surface with few decays as their clocks are running slowly.

SUMMARY: There are different ways of understanding the same facts in different frames - Each is correct in frame it applies. Neither depends upon the other - TT would travel less, even if his brother did not exist to understand / explain /describe/ what happened via "time dilation" and conversely.
For example we understand / explain /describe/ the muons as in a "time dilated" frame, even though they do not understand / explain /describe/ anything.
Each POV is separately valid (and follows from the SR math, independently.)

Yes, unlike your denial that space contraction exists, James & I accept that it and time dilation do, but not that either is the cause of the other. You falsely claim we did and now falsely say we are trying to "back pedal." That is just another duck and weave of yours or a deliberate lie. If you think not, then quote where either of us said one caused the other. We understand that they have equal footing as both are mathematical logical derivations from the two basic SR postulates.

Here are two of your many other errors I noted in post 1329 for you to try to wiggle out of (Note that unlike your unsupported false claims about what James and I said, I first quote you making your false statements.) :

Here was my reply to these two of the dozen or so errors MacM made in just post 1321:

I do the same for MacM’s (3) & (4) in a later post, but if you can’t wait go to:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2369069&postcount=1329
and read about a dozen other equally stupid and/or false MacM assertions.

---------------
*I said "Almost got it right" because while "time dilation" is true - what the stay-at-home understand is the cause of his brother being younger, there is no claim in SR, (or by James or me) that "time dilation" is a "consequency" of space contraction. "time dilation" comes directly from the SR math, not a derivative form "space contraction."

Shear self-serving babble and not one ounce of rebuttal in physics terms. Just "But my mommy said so" doesn't cut it.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

FAIL again!

You said you'd post examples of where I have contradicted myself etc., but you only posted things other people have written.

1344

“Originally Posted by MacM:"Thank you for making a complete ass out of yourself. I'll be posting links to several of your other posts where you have argued just the opposite and I'll be posting SR assertions showing you sir are full of crap. ”

Posted Reply by James R:"Great. We (the Queen of England and I) are both waiting.

This is the first time I have ever sighted the source you just quoted. I did not write it. I did not rely on it. Therefore it is impossible that I have flip-flopped about this, distorted it or lied about it.

You will now apologise to me.

Wait no more you giant fool.

1131 Posted by James R
But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

1326 Posted by James R:"I never said length contraction produced time dilation. Your mind is going.

1338 Posted by James R:"

“Originally posted by McM:"2 - Length Contraction doesn't cause time dilation. ”

Re[ply posted by James R:"Correct. It does not."

1341 Posted by James R


Originally posted by MacM:"Right like v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t and causes time dilation... "

Reply by James R:"In your dreams only. It has nothing to do with time dilation, as I've already explained 5 times in detail to you. "

It doesn't take long to see that 1326, 1338 & 1341 are all flip-flops from 1131.

There is nothing wrong with any of this, but I wonder why you are relying on it, seeing as you don't believe a word of it. Note that it talks about length contraction, which you do not believe in.

You are right I do NOT believe in length contraction of space. But it was you that said there was no such claim in SR.

It also talks about time dilation, which apparently you now no longer believe in either since you think all clocks always tick at the same rate.

Don't you dare attempt to twist what I have said. I posted the diagrams and mathematics proving that if you assert length contraction causes time dilation it is false because physically under length contraction clocks "WOULD" tick in sync. I further stated that since that was inconsistant with empirical data it proves length contraction is false and does not caue time dilation. I have clearly stated that time dilation of clocks is fact.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continually quoting a theory you believe is wrong as somehow "proving" your nutty ideas. You're off with the fairies in la la land.

Because yu said theoryvdid not claim these things. What you want to now pretend you didn't say that either?

I never said length contraction causes a "loss of accumulated time" in any frame. Length contraction is a separate effect from time dilation.

Liar - distorter. see 1131 above.

I note again that I have PROVEN in a separate thread that length contraction and time dilation both follow from the postulates of special relativity. You can't have one without the other.

You haven't proven jack shit. You have recited SR and followed SR math procedures to produce SR results.

Oh, and 1+1=2 still does not disprove relativity.

No but

......___TT___...._RT_
v = 0.5e / 0.5t = d / t

DOES.

quote]Originally posted by James R:

1067

Say the distance between A and B is 100 kilometres according to the "resting" observer and the traveller's speed is 100 kilometres per hour. Then, the resting observer will measure the round-trip time to be 2 hours. The travelling observer says the distance between A and B is 50 km, and points A and B travel at 100 km/hr in the travelling observer's frame of reference. The round-trip time in this case will be 1 hour.

When the two observers get back together and compare clocks, they find that for the SAME TRIP (i.e. round-trip from A to B to A), the resting observer's clock has ticked off 2 hours, while the travelling observer's clock has ticked off 1 hour.[/quote]

1079

Stationary twin space: A.......................B.......................A
Stationary twin time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60..70..80..90.100.110.120

Travelling twin space: A...........B...........A
Travelling twin time: 0..10..20..30..40..50..60

Here, the stationary twin measures the travelling twin as travelling (say), 200 km in 120 minutes, at a speed of 100 km/hr. The travelling twin measures the distance as 100 km and the trip takes 60 minutes at 100 km/hr.

Everybody note that James R's diagram is precisely the same as my diagram and shows clearly the resultsof v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

That is going 1/2 the distance in 1/2 the accumulated time has both clocks ticking in sync. Hence when TT returns home RT's clcok must agree with TT's 60 minutes and the assertion that RT measures 120 minutes is shear fabrication and is falsified.

 

[James R]

MacM:

Your claim about my supposed flip-flop is based once again on your failure to understand what I wrote. No surprises there.

Let's baby-step you through it again.

But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

I never said length contraction produced time dilation.

You claim these two posts are contradictory. They are not.

Post #1131 means that if you accept the postulates of special relativity, both time dilation and length contraction - separate effects - follow automatically, as I have proven in a separate thread.

Post #1326 means that time dilation is not caused by length contraction. In fact, time dilation is a separately-derived consequence of the postulates of special relativity.

These two posts are therefore totally compatible with one another and MacM FAILS again.

You are right I do NOT believe in length contraction of space. But it was you that said there was no such claim in SR.

Nonsense. I have PROVEN, in a separate thread, that both length contraction and time dilation follow mathematically from the postulates of SR.

How could I PROVE something I claim does not exist?

Your mind is going.

Don't you dare attempt to twist what I have said. I posted the diagrams and mathematics proving that if you assert length contraction causes time dilation it is false because physically under length contraction clocks "WOULD" tick in sync.

You incorrectly mixed frames, as I have explained to you 5 times. You proved nothing. And v=d/t is true in any SINGLE frame of reference provided that d and t are both measured in the same frame. It does not prove anything about relativity, which concerns the comparison of blocks between two DIFFERENT frames.

This is the source of your basic error that you have now been harping on about for pages and pages, making yourself look dumber and dumber with every passing post.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by continually quoting a theory you believe is wrong as somehow "proving" your nutty ideas. You're off with the fairies in la la land.

Because yu said theoryvdid not claim these things. What you want to now pretend you didn't say that either?

Just to be clear to you, since you have trouble comprehending things: I believe and hold that SR is correct in all its aspects. Therefore, I hold that length contraction and time dilation are real effects that both happen.

I hope this is clear enough so that even you might get it.

I note again that I have PROVEN in a separate thread that length contraction and time dilation both follow from the postulates of special relativity. You can't have one without the other.

You haven't proven jack shit.

I'll repeat myself: I have PROVEN that length contraction and time dilation follow from the postulates of special relativity; you can't have one without the other.

My PROOF is on record in a separate thread. Your denying its existence just makes you look even stupider with every post you make. Do you want the link to my PROOF again, or do you think you're smart enough to use the index to the Physics & Math forum to review it yourself. You have totally ignored it because you KNOW you can't find fault with my PROOF.

You're all hot air and no content.

Everybody note that James R's diagram is precisely the same as my diagram and shows clearly the resultsof v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t.

So now you believe in length contraction after all. Flip flop goes flippity floppy MacM.

Are we done, then?

 

[James R]

MacM:

Here's a link to my wonderful PROOF:

[thread=95873]PROOF[/thread]

Challenge: point out the error in my PROOF that length contraction exists.

Or: FAIL.

I know what you'll do.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Oh, so use the same mathematical formality that predicts something to prove it is wrong? Really, I hadn't thought of that approach. Maybe that is why I have been successful and you aren't.

Dumb ass. Your math transforms are nothing more than a process based on the assumption that length contraction exists in the first place.

Get real.

If you do the Lorentz transforms you get the results which we measure in Nature. How much more 'real' do you want?

But unlike you I'm pragmatic and not egotistical.

No, you just claim to be throwing us your intellectual scraps and to have solved the world energy crisis. But yet you're reduced to arguing on forums.

WOW. No need to continue this dribble. Thanks for proving you are full of shit.

If you click on the following link and then enter these patent numbers you can review the patents. To see Full Images you may need to download a special viewer called Altiff but it is free on the US Patent site.

Relating to the fusion device? You admitted you had none. And notice how I was talking about the fusion device? I know it's a struggle but try to keep up.

Post a physics rebuttal to the issue of falsification.

Physics correctly predicts what we observe in Nature, with regards to time dilation. What more needs to be said?

Post a physics rebuttal to the issue of falsification.

Physics correctly predicts what we observe in Nature, with regards to time dilation. What more needs to be said?

Still waiting for you to post the physical dimensions of the muon and electron. Are you struggling?

 

[MacM]

If you do the Lorentz transforms you get the results which we measure in Nature. How much more 'real' do you want?

No, you just claim to be throwing us your intellectual scraps and to have solved the world energy crisis. But yet you're reduced to arguing on forums.

Relating to the fusion device? You admitted you had none. And notice how I was talking about the fusion device? I know it's a struggle but try to keep up.

Physics correctly predicts what we observe in Nature, with regards to time dilation. What more needs to be said?

Physics correctly predicts what we observe in Nature, with regards to time dilation. What more needs to be said?

Still waiting for you to post the physical dimensions of the muon and electron. Are you struggling?

What about reciting SR or it's procedures do NOT prove the theory. What about tht do you not understand.

Your transforms do not alter the basic physical facts at hand. Length contraction does not produce time dilation. Length contraction shows both clocks are ti king in sync. That falsifies the SR assertion that the clocks record different times for the same trip.

End of discusion.

 

[MacM]

To All onlookers:

I hope you can recall my post about "DoubleThink".

DoubleThink is a mental condition , a defect where people afflicted believe two completely contridictary things about reality at the same time and cannot understand the confliction.

********************* James R's Posts ***********************

1131
But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

Originally Posted by MacM about length contraction:"Right like v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t and causes time dilation...

1341 James R's reply:

In your dreams only. It has nothing to do with time dilation, as I've already explained 5 times in detail to you.

1326
I never said length contraction produced time dilation. Your mind is going.


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

There can be no more clear evidence that James R suffers from this mental defect. We should all feel sorry for him but do not fall sucker to his dillusions.

In his post above he states:

Originally Posted by James R: "You claim these two posts are contradictory. They are not.

Yet in one he says you can't have time dilation without length contraction, in the other he says length contraction has nothing to do with time dilation. Further in 1126 he denies even having said these sorts of things.

Still he insists they are not in conflict. He in fact follows the precise pattern and has the symptoms of a "DoubleThinker" he jumps through hoops to justify his conflicting beliefs. - :shrug:

He has recently challenged me to post proof he has flip-flopped. I did so in spades and now here we are again. More flip-flops and lies.

James R is afflicted people. Take that into consideration anytime you read something he has asserted. He cannot be trusted to tell you the truth. He lies but can only call his opponent a liar. Sad actually really sad. When you tell constant lies itv is hard to remember what you said and you eventually get caught don't you James.

His is a case of "I am right and you have to believe I'm right because I say so". He is so inconsistant on virtually any issue I raise it must be clear by now what his problem is.

I know he got his degree from a Cracker Jacks box.

 

[Billy T]

As usually MacM you simply are not capable of logical thought, or even of following it when James has explained (as I have too) that both time dilation and space contraction come from the two basic postulates and neither "causes" or "produces" the other.

Perhaps a 3 grade level analogy of this will help you understand:

From the postualtes of simple math these two facts, "a" and "b" follow:
(a): 1 + 2 = 3
and
(b): 2 + 3 = 5
Neither is the cause of the other as both follow from the postulates of math.

James has shown that one (time dilation) can not be true without the other (space contraction) being true also.

In the math example above to show this, one makes use of

1 + 1 = 2 and the math fact that equals subtracted from equals results in equals.

Ie. starting with "b" (or time dilation) we have:
(2 + 3) -(1 +1) = 5 - 2 = 3
but the left side of the above equation is also (1 + 2) and the right side is 3. Or 1 + 2 = 3 which is (a).

So "a" (or space contraction) must be true if "b" (or time dilation) is true.

I.e. from the math proof James gave in his link, time dilation can only be true if space contraction is true.
That follows the same way math logic shows (1 + 2 = 3) can only be true if (2 + 3 = 5) is true also.

This proof that both must be true does not mean (as you misunderstand) that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3) nor does the fact that (time dilation) is true cause the fact that (space contraction) is true.

Surely at this third grade level you can now understand that James never said one caused the other - Unless you think that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3). James only proved that one can not be false if the other is true.

To others, I admit by taking my time to post this, I am giving MacM credit for being able to understand third grade logic. - that may be my mistake.

 

[MacM]

As usually MacM you simply are not capable of logical thought, or even of following it when James has expalined (as I have too) that both time dilation and space contraction come from the two basic postulates and neither "causes" or "produces" the other.

Perhaps a 3 grade level analogy of this will help you understand:

From the postualtes of simple math these two facts, "a" and "b" follow:
(a): 1 + 2 = 3
and
(b): 2 + 3 = 5
Neither is the cause of the other as both follow from the postulates of math.

James has shown that one (time dilation) can not be true without the other (space contraction) being true also.

In the math example above to show this, one makes use of

1 + 1 = 2 and the math fact that equals subtracted from equals resultes in equals.

Ie. starting with "b" (or time dilation) we have:
(2 + 3) -(1 +1) = 5 - 2 = 3
but the left side of the above equation is also (1 + 2)

so "a" (or space contraction) must be true if "b" (or time dilation) is true as (a) was 1 +2 = 3.

I.e.from the math, time time dilation can only be true if space contraction is true. That follows the same way math logic shows (1 + 2 = 3) can only be true if (2 + 3 = 5) is true also.

This proof that both must be true does not mean (as you misunderstand) that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3) nor does the fact that (time dilation) is true cause the fact that (space contraction) is true.

Surely at this third grade level you can now understand that James never said one caused the other - Unless you think that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3). James only proved that one can not be false if the other is true.

To others, I admit by taking my time to post this, I am giving MacM credit for being able to understand third grade logic. - that may be my mistake.

Since you choose to continue the BS and not address the real issue of the physics involved, I'll not waste time responding to your irrelevant crap.

FYI: And others here is what James R said:

Originally Posted by James R:

"1131
But I posted a thread that PROVES mathematically that you can't have time dilation without length contraction.

1341 James R's :
In your dreams only. It (Note by MacM:"It" as in length contraction) has nothing to do with time dilation, as I've already explained 5 times in detail to you.

Clearly these two statements are diameterically opposed.

Your inability to understand that is because you too have shown you suffer the same "DoubleThink' mental defect.

You claim nothing physical changes during relative velocity but correctly claim time dilation is physically real. So you have a view which operates on magic. No physical cause results in one clock losing time while the other which shares the common relative velocity is unaffected. Great mental power in that view.

Originally Posted by James R:

1326
I never said length contraction produced time dilation. Your mind is going.

Then he lies about what he has inferred.

Now either address the issue of get lost.

 

[Billy T]

... I'll not waste time responding to your irrelevant crap...

Why am I not surprized? You do not understand even the third grade logic in post 1369. Nor do you make any attempt to respond to the dozen of so errors you made in only one post, which I pointed out in my post 1329. Your are only capable of name calling or ignoring, not logical reply even at third grade level!

This thread should be closed as you do not discuss, but only repeatedly assert the same false "MacM facts."

 

[MacM]

Why am I not surprized? You do not understand even the third grade logic in post 1369. Nor do you make any attempt to respond to the dozen of so errors you made in only one post, which I pointed out in my post 1329. Your are only capable of name calling or ignoring, not logical reply even at third grade level!

This thread should be closed as you do not discuss, but only repeatedly assert the same false "MacM facts."

I'll simply note that you and James continue to repeat the same lame SR assertions without any supporting empirical data. Until you overturn my view using valid physics it will remain my view.

Considering you have had several weeks now to actually address the issue and won't then I suspect you are unable to do so.

Just to keep the record straight: You have not pointed out any actual errors in my posts but have posted distorted versions of my post of your own making and have merely recited SR or others that advocate SR as being proof of something.

Let me suggest the issue is rather clear: Length(spatial) contraction does NOT cause or contribute to time dilation. Only physical clock tick rate dilation does and you reject any physical changes. A view impossible to justify where things happen selectively and by magic.

Question do you still put a fallen tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy or wait anxiously for Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny?

BTW: I was posting some added text while you posted you may want to go back and re-read my prior post.

 

[Billy T]

... Just to keep the record straight: You have not pointed out any actual errors in my posts but have posted distorted versions of my post of your own making and have merely recited SR or others that advocate SR as being proof of something. ...

Again, totally false. NO distorion and NO quote of others. NO reciting of SR.
Here are the facts, starting with your post 1321:

OMG, Please not muons again. I have shot you down to many times on that arguement.

1 - It is not a controlled lab enviornment.

2 - You have no consideration of possible affects of passing though earth's magnetic field at high velocity. ...

How is this a distortion? Who have I quoted? It is exact copy from your post, but with the next three false points and remainder omitted. (In my post 1329 I already reproduce all of your post 1321 nonsense and did not want to “double post.”) I did correct your miss-spellings in the earlier copies so they were not exact.
Is correction of your spelling “my distortion” ?

I now again repost part of my 1329 reply to above, showing why these two statement of yours are false. As shown in 1329, all five of your points and about 5 other statements in your post 1321 are equally false and /or stupid, but still with no logical reply from you. (I do not consider your calling them “crap” to be a logical reply.)

No. You have speculated that the confirmed predictions of SR could be due to a multitude (you listed 5) of other cases that just happen by chance to cause the agreement with SR's predictions. Let's consider your five: ...
Note even if your five alternative suggestions were not demonstrable false, but true, it would be an astounding chance happening that they reproduced the observed predictions of SR but your five above "by-chance" agreeing with SR alternatives are ALL false as I now show:

(1) False - Muon curved tracks in thick photographic emulsion films, commonly used to capture and record nuclear physics experiments with high energy particle accelerators confirm in the lab the same facts that the cosmic ray muons do. (From the radius of curvature in the uniform magnetic field their speed is learned and with it the expected density of ionization along the track can be computed, and is essentially constant as predicted while they are still with nearly the speed of light, But as they near the end of their track tracks the time dilation is reduced and this statical decrease in muon flux (due to them decaying more rapidly) AND increase in associated muon decay events is reflected in the ionization track density (along the track) and is as predicted by SR. (If it were not, but conflicted with SR, then getting a Noble prize would be easy - any of the dozen graduate student at JHU doing these types of experiments while I was graduate student there could have gained the Noble prize. (JHU is one of the univerisities that control the Brookhaven accelerator so the high energy physic students were the second largest group.)

(2) False - If crossing magnetic field lines were why muons live much longer than their rest frame lifetimes, then zero muons would reach the surface at the magnetic poles as travel along field lines has no effects on anything (There is no magnetic force then.). The muon flux should show a strong latitude effect, strongest at the magnetic equator, but it does not.
(MacM you really need to learn some physics to avoid pulling nonsense like this out of your dark smelly place.) ...

I'm still waiting for a logical reply or admission that you were wrong on ALL FIVE of your suggested alternatives as to why the muons reach the surface of the Earth as predicted by SR and confirmed and showing that reciprocity does apply.

 

[MacM]

Again, totally false. NO distorion and NO quote of others. NO reciting of SR.
Here are the facts, starting with your post 1321:How is this a distortion? Who have I quoted? It is exact copy from your post, but with the next three false points and remainder omitted. (In my post 1329 I already reproduce all of your post 1321 nonsense and did not want to “double post.”) I did correct your miss-spellings in the earlier copies so they were not exact.
Is correction of your spelling “my distortion” ?

I now again repost part of my 1329 reply to above, showing why these two statement of yours are false. As shown in 1329, all five of your points and about 5 other statements in your post 1321 are equally false and /or stupid, but still with no logical reply from you. (I do not consider your calling them “crap” to be a logical reply.)

I'm still waiting for a logical reply or admission that you were wrong on ALL FIVE of your suggested alternatives as to why the muons reach the surface of the Earth as predicted by SR and confirmed and showing that reciprocity does apply.

This is my thread when you respond to the issue I raise with a valid physics post I'll consider addressing (correcting once again) your nonsense. Not before. Address the issue or get lost.

 

[James R]

MacM:

What the hell do you think you're doing?

In [post=2370466]post #1364[/post] I SPECIFICALLY responded to your accusation that I had made conflicting statements.

Your are now DISHONESTLY ignoring what I wrote and going on pretending I never explained it to you.

Your stupidity I can put up with, but I will not stand for LIES from you.

You will now acknowledge my post #1364 or this thread stops right here.

I require you to admit that I explained how there is no contradiction in my statements as quoted in post #1364.

You have 24 hours or this thread and you stop right here.

I demand a full apology from you.

Just so we're quite clear, here again is my explanation:

Yet in one he says you can't have time dilation without length contraction, in the other he says length contraction has nothing to do with time dilation.

Explanation: You can't have time dilation without length contraction because BOTH of them follow from the postulates of special relativity, as I have PROVEN in a separate thread linked above. Length contraction, however, does not CAUSE time dilation, and time dilation does not CAUSE length contraction.

You will now acknowledge that I have told you this, and that my statements in bold are compatible and not at all inconsistent. You have 24 hours to do this, and to admit that I posted this exact explanation in post #1364.

James R is afflicted people. Take that into consideration anytime you read something he has asserted. He cannot be trusted to tell you the truth. He lies but can only call his opponent a liar. Sad actually really sad. When you tell constant lies itv is hard to remember what you said and you eventually get caught don't you James.

I will not REQUIRE you to apologise for this outrageous slander on my character, but I appeal to your personal integrity to apologise for your baseless accusation that I lie. If you have any integrity at all, you will include an apology for this with your apology for ignoring what I wrote previously.

Your deadline starts now.

 

[Billy T]

MacM: What the hell do you think you're doing?

In [post=2370466]post #1364[/post] I SPECIFICALLY responded to your accusation that I had made conflicting statements.

Your are now DISHONESTLY ignoring what I wrote and going on pretending I never explained it to you. ...

He had it explained at least twice by me earlier for you:

{post 1351}...So James R is once again proven a flip-flopper, distorter or liar. ... So length contraction is asserted to cause loss of accumulated time in the tau frame contrary to James R's flip-flop that length contraction is not associated with time dilation.

{post 1352}… James (and I) have always stated that both time dilation and space contraction are mathematical results derived from the two postulates of SR, so of course they are "associated" but never have claimed either produced or caused the other. This is a straw horse idea, MacM either intentionally tries to foster onto SR or simply does not understand what SR states about their relationship. …

Then again in post 1369 I reduced it down to third grade level logic in simply analogy:

{post 1369} As usually MacM you simply are not capable of logical thought, or even of following it when James has explained (as I have too) that both time dilation and space contraction come from the two basic postulates and neither "causes" or "produces" the other. For example:

From the postulates of simple math these two facts, "a" and "b" follow:
(a): 1 + 2 = 3
and
(b): 2 + 3 = 5
Neither is the cause of the other as both follow from the postulates of math.

James has shown that one (time dilation) can not be true without the other (space contraction) being true also.

In the math example above to show this, one makes use of

1 + 1 = 2 and the math fact that equals subtracted from equals results in equals.

Ie. starting with "b" (or time dilation) we have:
(2 + 3) - (1 +1) = 5 - 2 = 3
but the left side of the above equation is also (1 + 2) and the right side is 3. Or 1 + 2 = 3 which is (a).

So "a" (or space contraction) must be true if "b" (or time dilation) is true.

I.e. from the math proof James gave in his link, time dilation can only be true if space contraction is true.
That follows the same way math logic shows (1 + 2 = 3) can only be true if (2 + 3 = 5) is true also.

This proof that both must be true does not mean (as you misunderstand) that (2 +3 = 5) causes (1 + 2 = 3) nor does the fact that (time dilation) is true cause the fact that (space contraction) is true. …

I think (and hope) you will close the thread as MacM will never admit he is wrong and probably does not think he is, as third grade logical thought is too hard for him.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

What the hell do you think you're doing?

In [post=2370466]post #1364[/post] I SPECIFICALLY responded to your accusation that I had made conflicting statements.

Your are now DISHONESTLY ignoring what I wrote and going on pretending I never explained it to you.

Your stupidity I can put up with, but I will not stand for LIES from you.

You will now acknowledge my post #1364 or this thread stops right here.

I require you to admit that I explained how there is no contradiction in my statements as quoted in post #1364.

You have 24 hours or this thread and you stop right here.

I demand a full apology from you.

You have to be kidding. After all the false slanderous bullshit you have tried to spread about me and you want an apology?

I have done nothing but prove you have "DoubleThink" symptoms. You flip-flop not just here but in prior cases which I also posted example of dealing with GPS.

Just so we're quite clear, here again is my explanation:

Explanation: You can't have time dilation without length contraction because BOTH of them follow from the postulates of special relativity, as I have PROVEN in a separate thread linked above. Length contraction, however, does not CAUSE time dilation, and time dilation does not CAUSE length contraction.

Save your attempt to save face. You said first that there can be no time dilaton without length contraction, then you said length contraction has nothing to do with time dilation.

That is "DoubleThink " double talk. Regardless of any technical verbal definitions you and SR have claimed that the traveling twin is younger because he traveled less distance at the same relative velocity. I have proven that is a false assertion. You can continue to ignore or deny that is the case but that is just part of your "DoubleThink" symptoms.

You will now acknowledge that I have told you this, and that my statements in bold are compatible and not at all inconsistent. You have 24 hours to do this, and to admit that I posted this exact explanation in post #1364.

I will make no apology or retractions for exposing the truth. I posted your statements precisely as you posted them. Just because you are now embarassed and want to waffel and weave some excuses doesn't cut it.

I will not REQUIRE you to apologise for this outrageous slander on my character, but I appeal to your personal integrity to apologise for your baseless accusation that I lie.

I cannot do that for a number of reason.

1 - You have lied many times and mostly about me, my education, my experience, my understandings, etc, etc. You need to learn that what goes around has a way of coming around. You have stuck your foot in your mouth extract it yourself.

2 - You have deliberately lied about things you claim I have said or believe. You have distorted my posts and argued against your own fabricated stupid assertions and have tried to attach them to me.

If you have any integrity at all, you will include an apology for this with your apology for ignoring what I wrote previously.

Your deadline starts now.

Don't hold your breath. And don't threaten me. You want to ban me go a head because you are showing your true self. Unable to respond with actual physics,your attack tatic failing, you only have left the pen which is mighter than a sword so they say.

What those that preach that don't understand is the truth is mighter than that and you are finished here. Your credability is shot.

Your whinning about being caught makes me puke. It is time you actually consider that v = 0.5d / 0.5t = d / t mandates re-evaluation of your postulates or of the possibility of an absolute frame.

 

[MacM]

He had it explained at least twice by me earlier for you: Then again in post 1369 I reduced it down to third grade level logic in simply analogy:

I think (and hope) you will close the thread as MacM will never admit he is wrong and probably does not think he is, as third grade logical thought is too hard for him.

Up yours too Billy T. I'm wrong when I'm wrong and you damn sure haven't posted anything showing I am wrong. BTW: You dind't answer about the tooth fairy, Santa Clause or Easter Bunny yet.

No physical cause is required to produce a permanent physical result - What a load of ignorant crap. You pathetic piece of egotistical, narcistic garbage.

I'll only say one thing you are worse than James R. James R at least has some simulance of education you don't.

You blab on forever with ridiculus bullshit and then claim you have proven something. You have not. You are nothing but a big blob of hot air.

 

[James R]

MacM:

21 hours remain.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

21 hours remain.

Yes you have 21 hours to show your true colors. Unable to provide a valid physics rebuttal you are now perched to cutoff the issue. Others will see how lopsided this place is.

If one does not embrace your view then they are subjected to being slandered, personally attacked, insulted or ignored.

Well FYI you have been caught flip-flopping and lying with your pants down now twice in recent weeks. Live with it because it is not going to change.

Like the title to this thread states it is my last relativity thread here. Likely my last thread period. so-be -it. I have made my point loud and clear inspite of your efforts to confuse others.

Einstein's view only works under some conditions as long as you turn a blind eye to actual physics. Relativity is mandated by emprical data but it is not Einstein's relativity that is physically real.

I don't feel sorry for you you are old enough to know better but I do feel sorry for all those students you claim to be corrupting.

Hopefully based on the readership of this thread (67% of the total for this sub-forum) people out there are interested. I'll also note that your thread UniKEF Analysis in Physics and Math, intended to discredit me has received 55% of the readership of that sub-forum.

So when I'm gone you should have plenty of time to spread your BS.

If you thought putting my threads in this sub-forum would mitigate the impact you were wrong. People can see the validity of my charge and they are following you and Billy's futile attempt to overturn it.

I do appreciate having had the opportunity to consider all the twists and turns that relativists use to dodge facing the enevitable truth and to narrow down the proveable falicies about SR. My book is in the proof reading stage right now.

Give me an address and I'll send you a signed complimentary copy. It is entitled

"Falsification of Special Relativity".


CASE 1:

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

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


Clock dilates 50%. Distance remains fixed.

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

A dilated clock matches emperical data and predictions of Special Relativty.

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

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

Clocks tick in synch when distance traveled = 50% and accumulated time = 50%.

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

This replicates the assertion by SR that the traveling twin goes 1/2 the distance and accumulates 1/2 the amount of time. What it shows is that when that happens both clocks tick in unison (are accumulating the same amount of time) and hence the resting twin's clock must display the same time as the traveling twin upon his return.

The assertion by SR that the resting twin accumulates more time is not supported by basic physics. It is a false assertion to cause the math to fit preconcieved ideas about the postulates and absence of an absolute rest frame.

Length contraction does not cause nor allow the traveling twin to return younger. It matters not what Lorentz Transformations predict they are mere math procedures based on the assumtions and the assumptions are falsified.

The only process that works is physical clock tick rate dilation (Case 1) but then you must formalize a new theoretical foundation for relativity.

Have a nice day twit.