Mac's Special Relativity

[MacM]

I agree... like I said, the calculation indicates that you'd actually see a 1/3 tick rate from a clock actually ticking at at rate of 0.6 (ie time dilated from a rate of 1.0) and moving away at 0.8c.

So how do you figure that "what you actually see would only be 1/5 or 20%"?

Here is where you and I likely part. You are content to apply this logic to both observers. I contend that only the accelerated clcok is dilated to 0.6 and that the denomintor therefore becomes "1" because "v" is the actual "v" induced by acceleration and not merely relative velocity. "v" for the station = "0" hence f' = f * (1 - v/c) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 = f * (1 - 0.8) / (1 - (0.0)^2)^0.5 = 0.2 / 1.0 = 0.2.

That is there has been no cause to change physics (tick rate) of the station clock. That is indeed what empirical data shows.

However, one can then argue that since the shuttle clock IS indeed ticking physically slower, it appears to the shuttle observer that the station clock is ticking at(0.2/the shuttle dilated rate) or .2 / .6 = 0.3333.

However, IF you also wish to insist that the "v" IS relative then you would get 0.333 / .6 = 0.5555.

My point is that there is no data, has never been a test nor observation made from the accelerated frame to verify what is "Seen" from that frame. It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal and the formulas apply and describe physical reality. That isn't supported by data. The resting clock nevers loses time. If it did then both clocks would dilate equally and no differentail could ever have been measured.

And you didn't answer the first question: What do you mean by "See", when you put it in quotes?

I think you mean "Measure after accounting for any signal delays." Is that right?

If you are measuring (Seeing) frequency, once the signal has arrived delay has no bearing. So not sure what you are getting at. "See" means "See" and assumes some super new technology to peer at the other clock and "See" it's tick rate (receipt of flashes of light per tick) while moving at relavistic speeds.

 

[Pete]

Here is where you and I likely part. You are content to apply this logic to both observers. I contend that only the accelerated clcok is dilated to 0.6 and that the denomintor therefore becomes "1" because "v" is the actual "v" induced by acceleration and not merely relative velocity. "v" for the station = "0" hence f' = f * (1 - v/c) / (1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5 = f * (1 - 0.8) / (1 - (0.0)^2)^0.5 = 0.2 / 1.0 = 0.2.

Wait... go back. I can't tell which observer you were talking about in your previous posts. I'm also not that comfortable with fiddling around with the doppler formula - I don't like to rely on formulas, and would rather work from the basics. Let's clarify:

The shuttle is moving away from the station at 0.8c, and the shuttle clock is ticking at 60% of the station clock's rate, right?

So it is expected that the station observer will see flashes from the shuttle arrive at a rate of 1/3 the station clock's tick rate, right?

However, one can then argue that since the shuttle clock IS indeed ticking physically slower, it appears to the shuttle observer that the station clock is ticking at(0.2/the shuttle dilated rate) or .2 / .6 = 0.3333.

OK... so we agree that flashes from the station will arrive at the shuttle at 1/3 the shuttle clock's tick rate.
If the shuttle observer considers his clock is ticking slowly (0.6 ticks per second), that means that he calculates that the flashes are really arriving at 0.2 per second.

I don't have a problem with that... There's nothing to stop the shuttle pilot doing that conversion as a matter of convention.

However, IF you also wish to insist that the "v" IS relative then you would get 0.333 / .6 = 0.5555.

I don't know what those numbers mean. 0.5555 what?

My point is that there is no data, has never been a test nor observation made from the accelerated frame to verify what is "Seen" from that frame. It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal and the formulas apply and describe physical reality. That isn't supported by data.

Are you going back to an absolute reference frame? That there is a rest frame against which all others can be measured?

If you are measuring (Seeing) frequency, once the signal has arrived delay has no bearing.

If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart.

"See" means "See" and assumes some super new technology to peer at the other clock and "See" it's tick rate (receipt of flashes of light per tick) while moving at relavistic speeds.

So you mean "See" when the flashes were emitted, rather than "See" when they arrive?
"See" taken literally would mean see the flashes as they arrive, but that's not what you mean, is it?

 

[MacM]

The shuttle is moving away from the station at 0.8c, and the shuttle clock is ticking at 60% of the station clock's rate, right?

Correct. That is what empirical data supports.

So it is expected that the station observer will see flashes from the shuttle arrive at a rate of 1/3 the station clock's tick rate, right?

Correct.

OK... so we agree that flashes from the station will arrive at the shuttle at 1/3 the shuttle clock's tick rate.

If the shuttle observer considers his clock is ticking slowly (0.6 ticks per second), that means that he calculates that the flashes are really arriving at 0.2 per second.

I don't have a problem with that... There's nothing to stop the shuttle pilot doing that conversion as a matter of convention.

Not exactly the purpose of the post. It was to point out that the shuttle MUST physically be ticking at 60% the station clock to have him see 33.33% otherwise he would see 20%. (i.e. - this runs against the arguement in SR for reciprocity of the affect of relative motion).

I don't know what those numbers mean. 0.5555 what?

If you claim 33.33% because the shuttle is physically ticking slower then if you insist on reciprocity where the station is dilated to 60% the observation would go to55.55%. 33.33% / 0.6.

Are you going back to an absolute reference frame? That there is a rest frame against which all others can be measured?

I'm merely holding prior arguements to be physically real.

If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart.

?

So you mean "See" when the flashes were emitted, rather than "See" when they arrive?

See the arrival.

"See" taken literally would mean see the flashes as they arrive, but that's not what you mean, is it?

Yes it is.

 

[przyk]

My point is that there is no data, has never been a test nor observation made from the accelerated frame to verify what is "Seen" from that frame.

Given the current state of affairs, such a test is less than urgent. All the most precise fundamental laws are known to be Lorentz invariant. What this means (taking a transformation along the x axis as an example) is that if we take some set of initial conditions at time $$t_0$$ (eg. the initial positions and velocities of particles that constitute a clock):

$$\{ x_1 \. , \; x_2 \. , \; x_3 \. , \; \ldots \}_{\mathrm{init}}$$ and $$\{ u_1 \. , \; u_2 \. , \; u_3 \. , \; \ldots \}_{\mathrm{init}}$$​

and the evolution of the system is governed by laws (eg relativistic mechanics, electromagnetism, relativistic quantum mechanics) giving some set of solutions:

$$\{ x_1(t) \. , \; x_2(t) \. , \; x_3(t) \, , \; \ldots \}$$​

Then if those laws are Lorentz invariant, it means I can naively replace every $$x_n$$, $$u_n$$, and $$t_0$$ in the initial conditions with, respectively:

$$x_{n}' = \gamma \left( x_{n} - v t_0 \right)$$​

$$u_{n}' = \frac{u_n - v}{1 - \frac{u v}{c^2}$$​

$$t_{0}' = \gamma \left( t _0- \frac{v}{c^2} x_n \right)$$​

and the exact same laws that determined the original evolution of the system will now yield as a solution:

$$\{ x_{1}'(t') \. , \; x_{2}'(t') \. , \; x_{3}'(t') \. , \; \ldots \}$$​

Where the new $$x'$$ and $$t'$$ coordinates are related to the original $$x$$ and $$t$$ coordinates by the same transformation used on the initial conditions.

This property of symmetry in fundamental physical laws implies that any moving object will experience the same time dilation and length contraction effects, which are independent of the details of its physical properties and composition. It also follows that any two observers who apply an agreed upon procedure to assign space and time coordinates to any event they observe will find those coordinates to be related by the same Lorentz transformation, regardless of whether that procedure involves tape measures, triangulation, etc. The beauty of Lorentz invariance is that you can see all of this without doing a single calculation.

All of this should explain why you can't just innocently propose whatever time dilation and length contraction formulae you want and expect your proposed empirical laws to automagically fit with the rest of physics. There are serious constraints on what transformations physical laws can exhibit invariance to. As a specific example, the "MacM transform" from my last post fails because it doesn't form a group.

If you throw invariance out altogether, you no longer have any reason to assume all clocks will dilate by the same factor, that all objects will either contract by the same factor or not contract at all, or even that your shuttle will still be physically intact at 0.8c. You would have to propose your own versions of fundamental laws that determine the physical properties of matter (like MacM Quantum Mechanics) and do case by case calculations predicting the various effects "absolute velocity" has on the evolution rates, equilibrium lengths, and stability of whatever clocks, rods, shuttles, or human beings you happen to be considering.

If you stick with unjustified empirical laws about moving clocks, you'll be missing the big picture, missing what STR is really about, and you'll never propose anything that can compete with the complete theory we already have.

 

[Pete]

Not exactly the purpose of the post. It was to point out that the shuttle MUST physically be ticking at 60% the station clock to have him see 33.33% otherwise he would see 20%.

Sorry, I really don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Maybe you're making some other assumption that you haven't spelled out?

If you claim 33.33% because the shuttle is physically ticking slower then if you insist on reciprocity where the station is dilated to 60% the observation would go to55.55%. 33.33% / 0.6.

Again, I can't follow your reasoning.

I'm merely holding prior arguements to be physically real.

I don't know what you mean.
You said "It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal..."
So it seems to me that you're arguing that some frame or frames are preferred?

?

I said "If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart."
What's not to understand? Try this:
You throw two rocks at a target, with 1.7 seconds between throws.
You pitch the first rock in a hard, flat trajectory. It takes t seconds to go from you to the target.
You lob the second rock in a high, looping arc. It takes t+0.8 seconds to go from you to the target.
Both rocks hit the target - how much time passes between the two hits?
2.5 seconds, right?

See the arrival.

OK. So, going back a few posts ([post=]here[/post]):

v = 0.8c; t = 100

Time dilation is 60%. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's time dilated rate (60%)

This is not correct. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's doppler shifted rate (33.3%).

The time dilated rate is the rate at which the flashes leave the time dilated clock, not the rate at which they arrive at the observer.

 

[MacM]

There are serious constraints on what transformations physical laws can exhibit invariance to. As a specific example, the "MacM transform" from my last post fails because it doesn't form a group.

You should be more careful dictating to nature how the universe functions.

Nothing wrong with current data. Claiming it must be recipocal is fool hardy.

Remember. If you don't discard the physical fact that an accelerated clock IS ticking slower, its accumulated time over a trip is only correct IF there was no length contraction.

Only by ignoring the dilated tick rate can you assert the foolishness of spatial contraction. The real solution is that relative velocity is not symmetrical because the moving observer is timing the trip (over the same distance) with a slow clock and hence concludes he has higher velocity.

Two guys on a plane going from LA to NY look at their watches on takeoff. They know it is 2,800 miles.

One watch keeps perfect time and records 7 hours and rightfully concludes v = d/t = 2,800miles / 7 hours = 400Mph.

The other man's watch batteries are low and it ticked more slowly only recording 3.5 hours. He claims they were flying 800 Mph because v = d/t = 2,800 miles / 3.5 hours = 800 Mph.

ONLY fools would say you must use the 400Mph velocity and using the bad watch claim due to your fliying the distance changed to 1,400 miles. d = v * t = 400 Mph * 3.5 hours = 1,400 miles!

Stupid, uterly stupid. And to base all our physics on that principle is absolutely unbelieveable. That is precisely what SR does. It ignores the dilated tick rate when computing distance.

I agree in the case of seperate motions the local proper tick rate IS the correct time but that tick rate MUST continue to be compared directly to other tick rates when computing distance because time and distance are physical enities. Velocity is a computed ratio and not an independant enity. You don't change the physical enity you change the computed ratio of physical enities. Keeping the same computed ratio from one frame and applying it to another frame is the fatal error.

If you throw invariance out altogether, you no longer have any reason to assume all clocks will dilate by the same factor, that all objects will either contract by the same factor or not contract at all, or even that your shuttle will still be physically intact at 0.8c. You would have to propose your own versions of fundamental laws that determine the physical properties of matter (like MacM Quantum Mechanics) and do case by case calculations predicting the various effects "absolute velocity" has on the evolution rates, equilibrium lengths, and stability of whatever clocks, rods, shuttles, or human beings you happen to be considering.

If that is how the universe works then it needs to be done and data (plus common sense) says that is the case. There is simply no justification to claim reciprocity simply because you can't sense absolute motion.

The two frames ARE NOT the same. One frame experienced forces and an energy change compared to the balance of the universe. The balance of the universe did not and does not change.

Hard fact is relative velocity does not dilate clocks or cause distance to change.

You can disagree and you can cite current theory but you CANNOT produce any data to support that arguement.

If you stick with unjustified empirical laws about moving clocks, you'll be missing the big picture, missing what STR is really about, and you'll never propose anything that can compete with the complete theory we already have.

I most likely will not but others certainly could and SHOULD because there is simply no question as to what is right here and it is NOT SR.

 

[przyk]

You should be more careful dictating to nature how the universe functions.

I'm not dictating anything. All the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, and they work. All the more well known relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and invariance of c are consequences of this, so it's you who is barging in suggesting that most of modern physics is wrong without good evidence. Saying we should just abandon relativity is like saying we should abandon the law of conservation of energy despite knowing that all the fundamental forces of nature are conservative. If either law turns out to be incorrect, you'd expect it to become apparent only under highly unusual or energetic conditions.

Claiming it must be recipocal is fool hardy.

No. The laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. If you invert a Lorentz transformation, you get another Lorentz transformation. Call it an illusion if you want, but the relationship between two frames is reciprocal.

Remember. If you don't discard the physical fact that an accelerated clock IS ticking slower, its accumulated time over a trip is only correct IF there was no length contraction.

Why should the length of a moving clock have anything to do with the time it accumulates?

ONLY fools would say you must use the 400Mph velocity and using the bad watch claim due to your fliying the distance changed to 1,400 miles. d = v * t = 400 Mph * 3.5 hours = 1,400 miles!

Er, you get the 400mph velocity knowing the distance, and then use that to calculate the distance? :bugeye:

The point of STR is this: pick any method for measuring distances and times, and our aeroplane passenger, applying this method, will measure the distance between LA and NY to be 1,400 miles. If you don't believe me, you could imagine one of the passengers on the plane measuring the distance to NY just as the plane is leaving LA by, say, triangulation. If you predicted what distance the passenger would measure, painstakingly accounting for time dilation, physical length contraction of the apparatus, and the relativity of simultaneity effect, you'd get the 1,400 mile figure. This approach is unnecessary since, again, this follows from Lorentz invariance.

If that is how the universe works then it needs to be done and data (plus common sense) says that is the case.

What data? And common sense tells you that matter falls apart at 0.8c and that velocity alone can kill? The irony is that most people I see questioning the principle of relativity have a tendency to take its consequences for granted. And as far as I'm aware, no data as ever shown the laws of physics to vary as a result of a reference frame's motion. You don't have to apply corrections to the laws of physics and chemistry depending on which way the Earth is going around the Sun, do you?

There is simply no justification to claim reciprocity simply because you can't sense absolute motion.

Yes there is: if there was no reciprocity, then you'd have some physical law that didn't take the same form between two frames, and you'd be able to sense absolute motion from this.

One frame experienced forces and an energy change compared to the balance of the universe. The balance of the universe did not and does not change.

What's the "balance" of the universe?

 

[MacM]

I'm not dictating anything. All the fundamental laws of physics are Lorentz invariant, and they work. All the more well known relativistic effects such as time dilation, length contraction, and invariance of c are consequences of this, so it's you who is barging in suggesting that most of modern physics is wrong without good evidence.

Unfortunately for you your evidence is contridictary or missing. Your claim is both frames are identical, yet only one clock loses time. You claim length conttraction but there is no observation or data to support that claim and as I have correctly pointed out maintaining a tick rate ratio which has been empirically demonstrated makes accumulated time by clocks ONLY correct if disatance DOES NOT contract.

So yes modern physics is wrong.

Saying we should just abandon relativity is like saying we should abandon the law of conservation of energy despite knowing that all the fundamental forces of nature are conservative. If either law turns out to be incorrect, you'd expect it to become apparent only under highly unusual or energetic conditions.

Strawman arguement. Understanding the correct application of SR and modifying it is not the same as abandoning it. In my view the empirical data remains unchanged what changes is there is "NO" reciprocity, which is not supported by data in the first place.

No. The laws of physics are Lorentz invariant. If you invert a Lorentz transformation, you get another Lorentz transformation. Call it an illusion if you want, but the relationship between two frames is reciprocal.

Bull crap. Pull your head out of the sand and look at the data and simple logic. More importantly look at the consequences of doing so.

Why should the length of a moving clock have anything to do with the time it accumulates?

WHAT? I never said anything about the length of the clock. It is the distance the clock travels that is being discussed.

Er, you get the 400mph velocity knowing the distance, and then use that to calculate the distance? :bugeye:

WHAT? You can't follow a simple illustrated example of the correct view vs using the calculated 400 Mph figure from one frame and transplanting the conclusion to another frame then claiming distance changed?????

Yours is the flawed concept.

The point of STR is this: pick any method for measuring distances and times, and our aeroplane passenger, applying this method, will measure the distance between LA and NY to be 1,400 miles. If you don't believe me, you could imagine one of the passengers on the plane measuring the distance to NY just as the plane is leaving LA by, say, triangulation. If you predicted what distance the passenger would measure, painstakingly accounting for time dilation, physical length contraction of the apparatus, and the relativity of simultaneity effect, you'd get the 1,400 mile figure. This approach is unnecessary since, again, this follows from Lorentz invariance.

Bull crap. You apply your assumptions to prove your assumptions. Get real. Better yet stop forcing a calculated value into another frame to foce a change in physical properties.

No. Computed velocity will change not the distance traveled.

What data? And common sense tells you that matter falls apart at 0.8c and that velocity alone can kill? The irony is that most people I see questioning the principle of relativity have a tendency to take its consequences for granted. And as far as I'm aware, no data as ever shown the laws of physics to vary as a result of a reference frame's motion. You don't have to apply corrections to the laws of physics and chemistry depending on which way the Earth is going around the Sun, do you?

Speaking of thaking things for granted. Don't take for granted that I am just anybody. I full well know pragmatic limitations. But then you have a real problem since according to "Relative" veloicty you are already trveling in excess of 0.8c. Look at remote galaxies. Further more in an ineertial condition what you call 0.8c is "0". Are you suggesting that 0.8c is some absolute veloicty - LOL.

Yes there is: if there was no reciprocity, then you'd have some physical law that didn't take the same form between two frames, and you'd be able to sense absolute motion from this.

More speculation. You are applying current rules to a new view. New rules must be developed for the correct view.

What's the "balance" of the universe?

You surely understand that the universe consists of "You" and then everythingelse. Anytime you move your velocity changes relative to everythingelse. But everything else didn't undergo F = ma or expend energy. So they ARE NOT the same and DO NOT respond the same.

Reciprocity is a flawed concept.

 

[Pete]

Hello? What am I, chopped liver?

 

[MacM]

Hello? What am I, chopped liver?

?????????????????

 

[Pete]

You seem to have missed my last on topic post.

 

[MacM]

Sorry, I really don't see how you reached that conclusion.
Maybe you're making some other assumption that you haven't spelled out?

Relavistic doppler: non-relavistic doppler / time dilation

Doppler = (1 - v/c) / (1- v^2/c^2)^0.5

= (1 - .8) / (1 - .64)^.5 = .2 / (.36)^.5 = .2/.6 = .3333

If there is no time dilation: .2 / 1.0 = .2

[quote4=MacM]“ I'm merely holding prior arguements to be physically real. ”[/quote]

I don't know what you mean.

You can't delcare a clock is ticking slower in one breath and in the next calculation pretend it is ticking 100%. That is what SR does by ignoring the relative tick rate when vewing different frames.

Local frame proper time is set = 1.000 in complete disregard that the 0.8c velocity (accelerated frame - not merely relative vleocity) IS ticking slower and hence the total trip time is accounted for ONLYif there is no change in distance between frames.

You said "It is wrongfully assumed that both frames are equal..."
So it seems to me that you're arguing that some frame or frames are preferred?

Yes SR claims both inertial frames are equal and emperical data as well as simple logic mandate they are not. That is why the accelerated frame clock dilates and the statinary one does not. Clock dilation (permanent loss of time) DOES NOT function according to relative velocity but according to v = at induced by F = ma.

One frame has experienced forces and changed veloicty in an absolute way the other hasn't.

I said "If two flashes were emitted 1.7 seconds apart, but the first one had 0.8s less travel time, then they will be received 2.5s apart."
What's not to understand? Try this:
You throw two rocks at a target, with 1.7 seconds between throws.
You pitch the first rock in a hard, flat trajectory. It takes t seconds to go from you to the target.
You lob the second rock in a high, looping arc. It takes t+0.8 seconds to go from you to the target.
Both rocks hit the target - how much time passes between the two hits?
2.5 seconds, right?

"?" But this has nothing jto do with the issue.

OK. So, going back a few posts ([post=]here[/post]):

This is not correct. It is argued that observers with relative velocity will "See" the others clock ticking at it's doppler shifted rate (33.3%).

If you include doppler then you must also include vector because it will be 33.33% to 300% as a function of angle of motion.

The time dilated rate is the rate at which the flashes leave the time dilated clock, not the rate at which they arrive at the observer.

That would be the 60% BUT ONLY for the accelerated clock. The stationary clock is NOT dilated as predicted by SR. Empirical data confirms that assessment.

 

[przyk]

Your claim is both frames are identical, yet only one clock loses time.

I said the same physical laws were applicable in both frames, and this is supported by evidence. One of the best examples is classical mechanics: when it was modified to be Lorentz invariant, the new relativistic mechanics made better predictions at high velocities than its classical counterpart. The same is true of quantum mechanics. If you do not understand what Lorentz invariance is or how it implies all the relativistic effects we tell kids about, you should either learn, or find something better to do with your time if you're not interested.

You claim length conttraction but there is no observation or data to support that claim

I told you: Lorentz invariance implies that objects will contract, and all the most fundamental physical laws are Lorentz invariant. Unless you know of a variant law that has better experimental supportor you have evidence that objects do not contract, you don't have a case against relativity.

and as I have correctly pointed out maintaining a tick rate ratio which has been empirically demonstrated makes accumulated time by clocks ONLY correct if disatance DOES NOT contract.

The only thing I've ever gathered from any of your "proofs" about relativity is that you're hopelessly confused about STR and reference frames, often to the point I don't even know where to begin with you. I did try pointing you in the right direction, by encouraging you to use coordinate transformations. If you don't deal with relativity this way you're unlikely to make much sense of the theory, and reciprocity in particular is always going to appear physically nonsensical to you.

Understanding the correct application of SR and modifying it is not the same as abandoning it.

Unless you have evidence contradicting relativity, there is no need to replace or modify the theory.

WHAT? You can't follow a simple illustrated example of the correct view vs using the calculated 400 Mph figure from one frame and transplanting the conclusion to another frame then claiming distance changed?????

Yes, I can follow it. Unfortunately, in your attempt to show how ridiculous relativity is, you misrepresented it, and the only real problem is that you're working from assumptions that are incompatible with relativity to begin with.

But then you have a real problem since according to "Relative" veloicty you are already trveling in excess of 0.8c.

Please demonstrate this using the Lorentz transformation.

Further more in an ineertial condition what you call 0.8c is "0". Are you suggesting that 0.8c is some absolute veloicty - LOL.

Er, if its 0 in one frame and 0.8c in another, how is that absolute?

Reciprocity is a flawed concept.

No one here is claiming that the relationship between an accelerating and an inertial frame is reciprocal.

 

[Pete]

Relavistic doppler: non-relavistic doppler / time dilation

Doppler = (1 - v/c) / (1- v^2/c^2)^0.5

= (1 - .8) / (1 - .64)^.5 = .2 / (.36)^.5 = .2/.6 = .3333

If there is no time dilation: .2 / 1.0 = .2

You're plugging numbers into equations without trying to understand the physical meaning. As a result, you're getting nonsense. Don't be a slave to the equations!

You can't delcare a clock is ticking slower in one breath and in the next calculation pretend it is ticking 100%. That is what SR does by ignoring the relative tick rate when vewing different frames.

Local frame proper time is set = 1.000 in complete disregard that the 0.8c velocity (accelerated frame - not merely relative vleocity) IS ticking slower and hence the total trip time is accounted for ONLYif there is no change in distance between frames.

Mac, I don't know what you're thinking. I think that you still aren't following what SR does and doesn't say.

Yes SR claims both inertial frames are equal and emperical data as well as simple logic mandate they are not. That is why the accelerated frame clock dilates and the statinary one does not. Clock dilation (permanent loss of time) DOES NOT function according to relative velocity but according to v = at induced by F = ma.

One frame has experienced forces and changed velocity in an absolute way the other hasn't.

You do realise that this is precisely the question that brought in relativity in the first place? The question of whether the laws of physics are motion dependent or not? Are you aware of the arguments that Lorentz, Stokes, Fresnel, Fitzgerald, and others had over this issue?
What "empirical data" do you have that dictates an absolute frame?
Can the shuttle observer tell that his frame is not the preferred frame? How?
How can the station observer tell that his frame is preferred?

"?" But this has nothing jto do with the issue.

Certainly it does. The signal rate leaving the source is not the same as the signal rate arriving at the receiver.

If you include doppler then you must also include vector because it will be 33.33% to 300% as a function of angle of motion.

Yes, that is true.
In this case, the shuttle is moving directly away from the station, so the station observer sees flashes at 1/3 the station clock tick rate. Not (as you said) 60%.

That would be the 60% BUT ONLY for the accelerated clock. The stationary clock is NOT dilated as predicted by SR. Empirical data confirms that assessment.

So you keep saying... but where is this "empirical data"?

I think we're done here, Mac. You can hold your breath and say that the station frame is preferred until you're blue in the face... but unless you have something that hasn't already been said over 100 years ago, you're wasting my time.

It's been fun chatting.

 

[MacM]

I said the same physical laws were applicable in both frames, and this is supported by evidence. One of the best examples is classical mechanics: when it was modified to be Lorentz invariant, the new relativistic mechanics made better predictions at high velocities than its classical counterpart. The same is true of quantum mechanics. If you do not understand what Lorentz invariance is or how it implies all the relativistic effects we tell kids about, you should either learn, or find something better to do with your time if you're not interested.

I told you: Lorentz invariance implies that objects will contract, and all the most fundamental physical laws are Lorentz invariant. Unless you know of a variant law that has better experimental supportor you have evidence that objects do not contract, you don't have a case against relativity.

The only thing I've ever gathered from any of your "proofs" about relativity is that you're hopelessly confused about STR and reference frames, often to the point I don't even know where to begin with you. I did try pointing you in the right direction, by encouraging you to use coordinate transformations. If you don't deal with relativity this way you're unlikely to make much sense of the theory, and reciprocity in particular is always going to appear physically nonsensical to you.

Unless you have evidence contradicting relativity, there is no need to replace or modify the theory.

Yes, I can follow it. Unfortunately, in your attempt to show how ridiculous relativity is, you misrepresented it, and the only real problem is that you're working from assumptions that are incompatible with relativity to begin with.

Please demonstrate this using the Lorentz transformation.

Er, if its 0 in one frame and 0.8c in another, how is that absolute?

No one here is claiming that the relationship between an accelerating and an inertial frame is reciprocal.

Well I think our discussion is finished. You simply cannot do anything but recite current theory. Your facts are distorted in that data only supports one view not both. When you get done screwing up those kids you are telling this crap to then go learn basic physics. Frankly I care less what Lorentz Invariance says.

Either answer the question or move on.

How do you justify ignoring a dilated clocks tick rate when you compute distance in the accelerated observer frame?

You take a calculated value of ratio of physical enties distance (m) and time (sec) for v1 = d1/t1 = m/s.

Where t1 is the resting clock accumulated time at the 100% resting tick rate.

And d1 = 200, t1 = 10 and v1 = 200/10 = 20

Then impose that calculated ratio into another frame where the observer has been accelerated and where you already claim (and it is supported by empirical data) the clock is ticking slower. "t2".

If the velocity v=at induced by F=ma is 0.8c then t2/t1 = 0.6.

THAT MEANS t2 WILL ONLY TICK 6 TIMES PER 10 TICKS OF t1.

You then write d2 = v1 * t2 = 20 * 6 = 120

Absolutely stupid. You take a calculated value in one frame and and force a physical enity to change in another frame.

Correct physics is:

v1 = d1/t1 = 200 /10 = 20

v2 = d2 /t2 = 200 / 6 = 33.333n

If you do not violate basic physics and retain the tick rate ratio then the accumulated time by the accelerated clock is fully accounted for without spatial contraction. Reciprocity vanishes and data now is in complete agreement in that the faster calulated velocity is the clock that will lose time.

STUFF YOUR LORENTZ INVARIANCE BS. It is inappropriate and does not describe physical reality.

A man boards a plane going from LA to NY (2,800 miles). His watch batteries are weak and it only ticks 1/2 the rate of the tower clocks at LA and NY.

He arrives in NY and the tower advises passengers "That took 7 hours so you were flying 400 Mph".

Can you really without laughing claim that the passenger should respond "Oh, in that case it was only 1,400 miles because we were going 400 Mph and according to my watch it only took 3.5 hours".

Of course not. His watch ticked slower and if you retain that PHYSICAL fact d = v * t, where t is accumulated time/ proportional tick rate or d = 400 * 3.5 / .5 = 2,800 miles.

What happens is the observer with the slower clock sees the distance traveled in less time and calculates a higher velocity.

 

[MacM]

You're plugging numbers into equations without trying to understand the physical meaning. As a result, you're getting nonsense. Don't be a slave to the equations!

Funny Pete I'm not the one hung up on equations. You foldk believe anything math predicts regardless how assinine the origin, derivation or false assumption upon which the formula is based.

Mac, I don't know what you're thinking. I think that you still aren't following what SR does and doesn't say.

This has nothing to do with what SR says. "I say" real physics mandates that you retain the physical fact that a clock that has been accelerated IS ticking slower than a resting clock.

Hence when the resting observer claims you trip of 2,800 miles took 7 hours that you were going 400 Mph.

A clock in motion will traverse the same 2,800 miles in less accumulated time (i.e.3.5 hours) on his clock and conclude v = d/t that he was going 800 Mph; not that he only traveled half as far.

The 400 Mphvelocity figure is a calculated ratio of physical enties d/t m/s.

By imposing this calculated veloicty using the non-dilated clock, into the accelerated frame where the clock is ticking slow forces the distance change.

That is uterly stupid. d and t are the physical enities upon which v is calculated. You cannot impose result from one frame into another where the time satandard has changed and ignore that change then claim distance changed.

You do realise that this is precisely the question that brought in relativity in the first place? The question of whether the laws of physics are motion dependent or not? Are you aware of the arguments that Lorentz, Stokes, Fresnel, Fitzgerald, and others had over this issue?

I really would care less. The whole of the issue fails from a false assumption regarding the signifigance of the invariance of light.

What "empirical data" do you have that dictates an absolute frame?

What empirical data do you have that supports mere relative velocity causes clocks to dilate?

Can the shuttle observer tell that his frame is not the preferred frame? How?

How can the station observer tell that his frame is preferred?

All irrelevant questions to the basic physics issue. In an airplane you normally cannot feel you are moving at 600 Mph but you are. Or that a man with a 39 inch chest and 18 inch torso has 150 tons of atmospheric pressure on his chest but he does.

Certainly it does. The signal rate leaving the source is not the same as the signal rate arriving at the receiver.

If that wern't true you'd have no doppler affect. But that still misses the point.

Yes, that is true.
In this case, the shuttle is moving directly away from the station, so the station observer sees flashes at 1/3 the station clock tick rate. Not (as you said) 60%.

True. I made the horrible mistake of thinking others were interested in time dilation and not the finite mathematical details including the doppler shift which changes as a matter of angle of motion.

So you keep saying... but where is this "empirical data"?

I (nor you) can ever prove a negative. But if you have data showing me wrong that would be a positive. Surely you have such data after 100 years of testing.

But then again you don't really need more data. You only need to proper;y interpret the data you have.

To do that I suggest you place two coffee cups equal distance on a table in front of you. Move the cup in your left hand down (toward you) that represents the accelerated clock and lower tick rate.

Now apply your reciprocity from SR and move the cup in your right hand down the same amount.

Now look at the result. "Did the accelerted cup lose time relative to the stationary cup?" Nope. Is that in keeping with the data you have where the accelerated cup lost time? Nope. Then reciproicty must not be a fact.

Really rather fundamental.

I think we're done here, Mac. You can hold your breath and say that the station frame is preferred until you're blue in the face... but unless you have something that hasn't already been said over 100 years ago, you're wasting my time.

It's been fun chatting.

Yep and it really is a shame you are incapable of learning. I've done all I can to enlighten you as to your failures.

 

[Pete]

Funny Pete I'm not the one hung up on equations. You foldk believe anything math predicts regardless how assinine the origin, derivation or false assumption upon which the formula is based.

Funny... the empirical data in this thread says otherwise!

 

[przyk]

Well I think our discussion is finished. You simply cannot do anything but recite current theory.

Agreed. You simply cannot do anything but recite your own fantasies.

Your facts are distorted in that data only supports one view not both.

Correct. It only supports relativity, but . . .

Frankly I care less what Lorentz Invariance says.

. . . you want to sweep the inconvenient facts under the carpet.

Either answer the question or move on.

Redress your scenario in terms of coordinate transformations and trajectories, or I can't be bothered even considering it. Of course you won't do it, since it would shatter your own arguments. You'd be forced to admit you were inserting your own assumptions into STR.

How do you justify ignoring a dilated clocks tick rate when you compute distance in the accelerated observer frame?

That's not how distances are calculated in STR or in any other theory. Take your own advice and learn some very basic physics.

STUFF YOUR LORENTZ INVARIANCE BS.

I am sorry to hear that reality does not conform to your personal worldview.

 

[MacM]

Funny... the empirical data in this thread says otherwise!

Easier said than demonstrated.

 

[MacM]

Correct. It only supports relativity, but . . .

Im[proper interpretation. "Both views" meant both SR views. Try again.

. . . you want to sweep the inconvenient facts under the carpet.

Ditto.

Redress your scenario in terms of coordinate transformations and trajectories, or I can't be bothered even considering it. Of course you won't do it, since it would shatter your own arguments. You'd be forced to admit you were inserting your own assumptions into STR.

]

False. You simply wish to disregard basic physics and artifically apply unrealistic constraints to the process. Of course if I ignore the FACT that an accelerated clock IS ticking slower then my calculation will be just as wrong as SR's

That's not how distances are calculated in STR or in any other theory. Take your own advice and learn some very basic physics.

This is "NO" response. The issue is the proven fact of reduced tick rate by the measuring clock. ONLY disregarding the known fact and wrongfully assuming recipocal relative velocities (a calculated value using clocks) do you get Lorentz Contraction.

I am sorry to hear that reality does not conform to your personal worldview.

Believe me I'm even more sorry that some people are so thick headed and can not see something as simple as differential tick rates of clocks used to measure a trip time means a different velocity calculation, not different distance traveled.