You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mac's Special Relativity
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
If you had real evidence against relativity, you'd have presented it by now.Ditto.
*sigh*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
Fine then. Let's take your plane flying from LA to NY at 0.866c. The passenger on board the plane has heard that STR predicts that, in the plane's frame, LA and NY will only be 1,400 miles apart, and he wants to test this. He arranges for two detectors to fly at the same speed as the plane, one 700 miles in front of the passenger, and the other trailing 700 miles behind.
The front detector is programmed to send a signal back to the plane when it detects it is flying over NY. The other is programmed to send a similar signal forward to the plane as it flies over LA. If STR is correct, the observer expects to receive both signals simultaneously. The signals travel at c relative to the Earth.
Now we assume that length contraction is correct at least from the point of view of an observer on Earth, and see what happens. As seen on Earth, the plane is half its rest length, the two detectors are only 350 miles in front of and behind the plane, and NY and LA are their usual 2,800 miles apart. If you work out in the Earth frame what happens, you'll find that the plane observer obtains the exact result he was expecting. You're not required to take my word for it, so try calculating it for yourself.
What's "stupid" is misrepresenting STR to fabricate nonexistent problems with it. All you've managed to show with your plane example is that reciprocity and length contraction are "stupid" in the context of MacM relativity, where you assume length contraction and relativity of simultaneity don't occur right from the beginning. Since your "proof" starts off with assumptions that contradict STR, it doesn't say anything about STR.
So everything I said about Lorentz invariance and its implications fell on deaf ears? You want to continue telling me why I'm assuming length contraction occurs when I've already given my own explanation? It's a bit difficult to have a discussion with you if all you're going to do is put words in my mouth.ONLY disregarding the known fact and wrongfully assuming recipocal relative velocities (a calculated value using clocks) do you get Lorentz Contraction.
Last edited:
Well, whatever penetrates the mind from MacM's theory is funny words and dim explanations. That is simply not enough for me, I need the theory almost poetically explained and i believe that most people do.