As many here know I used to argue extensively here but have for many months been deliberately absent because it was a waste of time since the tatic here is to attack personalities, cast enuendo, etc and not to actually address issues.
I'm posting this just so other members can evaluate the merits (or lack thereof) of responses being made by those claiming to be professionals here, in comparison to an actual high energy physicist that engaged issues I raise in a serious manner and indepth consideration through formal 1 on 1 debates.
Nothing here is meant to suggest I won, or that SRT was over turned, but the fact that such concerns deserve more than the usual brush off given here is clear and I only hope others will learn from this to weigh carefully the glib responses being made by some.
The following are comments made by the high energy particle physicist during and after our debates:
******************************************** Physicist *********************************************
It doesn't say anything about a moving clock. It simply says how you will observe the clock's time as a non-mover (and vice versa). Relativity only deals with
perceived time and space. That's it.
(Posted here by MacM - I have tried to make this point repeatedly here and it has been phoo-pooed and claimed that what is percieved is reality. That view is incorrect and creates the reciprocity failure of SRT. That is clock "A" cannot run slower than clock "B" at the same time clock "B" is running slower than clock "A". (A SRT relative velocity consequence if taken literally). Clock A can only "appear" to be running slower and vice-versa. The reality and supported by data, consequence is that only one clock will show time dilation and it is the clock that accelerated the most, experiencing F=ma. Acceleration is NOT merely the changing of relative velocity as a frame dependant view point but is associated with absolute energy - F=ma and v=at.
-----------------------------------------
Mac is, of course, correct that there are Lorentz factors in my skateboard and stopwatch example. It was just to point out that his frame-dependent-relative-velocity concept is no less outrageous than the whole time/space variation thing. Just far less respectable....
-----------------------------------
When you get right down to it, everything you allege is predicated on the fact that you believe it is possible to determine which object is "really" moving in an empty universe with only two objects in relative motion. It would be the object that experienced an acceleration in its history.
If this is a fact, then relativity is false. If it is not, then your idea is false. We certainly know that at slow speeds this is either false or immeasurably true. This doesn't disprove your supposition, but makes it somewhat more shaky.
Currently I know of no experimental result that would support your contention. I also acknowledge that the most direct experiment that might support this idea has not been done.
However, given the fact that this seems to be the basis of your physics theory, I'd spend time thinking how you might prove this idea. In this world of atomic clocks with obscene precision, it shouldn't be impossible to imagine such an experiment......................
If you're right, when you're in Stockholm say "Hi" to the king for me.
Posted here by MacM - See NOTE: at bottom of this post.
-------------------------------------------
I think on this even Mac would agree with me in my interpretation of his ideas. Note I am not talking about SR here.
Case 1: If you have two clocks and don't accelerate them, they will agree.
Case 2: If you have two clocks and accelerate them identically, they will agree.
In either of these two cases, if you later accelerate one of the two clocks, it will run more slowly.
However, it is impossible to distinguish between case 1 and case 2, if you look only between the two clocks. Mac would say it would take a third clock to disentangle between the two. That is, unless the third clock had been accelerated even more in the past. Then you still wouldn't be able to separate between 1 & 2.
I think he'd want you to look at all of the clocks in the universe, find the fastest running one and claim that this clock is the least-accelerated one in the history of the universe.
But, of course, he can speak for himself.
Posted here by MacM - See NOTE:Also consider that the accelerated case 2 the acceleration can be in opposite directions and produce relative velocity or it can be in a common vector and have no relative velocity. As he has just stated the affect on the clocks is equal (hence no dilation between clocks can exist even if there is relative velocity!!!!! Dilation is clearly a function of differential acceleration and not the relative velocity it creates.
--------------------------------
There are two issues here. Your original question, which was posed in Euclidean space. In this space, the speed of light is constant and matter may not exceed the speed of light.
It's a good question, I like it.
The second question is what happens when space itself changes shape. There is no law of relativity that requires space to move at the speed of light or slower. Space can expand at superluminal velocities.
Any person who argues with you about this simply doesn't understand GR and SR.
--------------------------------
So back to your original query. It's cute, I like it. I may well use it to torture cocky graduate students.
-----------------------------
First, let me say that the conundrum posed by Mac was a rather good one, the solution of which is non-trivial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On the other hand Mac, the query you posed was good enough to stump a number of my colleagues. The amount of time needed to figure this out was substantial….more than I had originally anticipated.
------------------------------
You know Mac…as much as you have thought about this, you would be well-advised to see if you could take a relativity class at a local university, preferably one of a respectable caliber. A thorough understanding of relativity would make you all the more intellectually dangerous....or maybe you’d just come over to the dark side…
****************************************
The following are comments by others after the debates:
1 - (physicist) For whatever it's worth Mac, I never voted. So you got one more vote than you thought. . . . . . . . . .
Apparently I'm not as persuasive as I thought. Only a couple of people thought I made a good case.
2 -(physicist) You have a talent for raising interesting questions.
3 - (member) Heh we are, this is surprisingly enjoyable to watch and follow along, for most of us, we don't usually get to see such concept explored in this fashion so it's very informative. I think we're all picking up little nuggets of information along the way, but thats the whole point of debates after all isn't it.
4 - (member) I don't know if I'm bold enough to state that I'm picking up new nuggets of information. Nonetheless, I feel a certain awe at Dr. Lincoln's ready understanding of sentences, even whole paragraphs, that seem to me like gobbledegook. Maybe this experience will encourage me to new humility. Just because something expressed in familiar language looks like gobbledegook to me doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Very odd. I just noticed something. I lack the background required to understand important parts of Dr. Lincoln's arguments. Nevertheless, none of his arguments strike me as gobbledegook. So even when I lack understanding, I hold opinions about whether statements carry meaning or not. On what do I base these opinions? Very odd.
5 - (moderator1) Excellent debate, Lincoln and Mac. I must confess to not understanding a large part of it, but it was very interesting, and I commend you both for staying civil and setting the debate bar high in our new forum. Thank you for all the effort you clearly put into the debates and congratulations. I hope we will see more, similarly excellent debates in the near future.
6 - (moderator2)I would like to congratulate Don and Dan, on behalf of the SCF debate committee, for their excellent participation in the opening debate. It was certainly fun and informative (for those of us with the sufficient background knowledge - count me out) to follow with the discussion. Thank you both.
7 - (physicist) I am not sure what to make of the debate. Many have commented on not being able to follow it. So one can reasonably wonder what is the point of the debate, except to give the two of us the opportunity to exercise our vocal cords (or fingers, as the case may be). During this debate, I didn’t pull any punches or hold a lot back, except for one crucial thing. Mathematics. . . . . . .
I was also wondering how long it would take for Mac to point out the following event horizon (as opposed to the forward direction). I have two comments. One is that I described the answer for the problem proposed and approved by Mac. But this is, of course, a bit disingenuous. The forward direction is a similarly good question. But it was an intentional trap. The real truth of the argument was in the link that was so mathematical. I wanted to see if Mac would read the text parts and glom onto the obvious and dangling rope. This approach flirts dangerously with a religious zeal.
Posted here by MacM - the above comment is an admission to the fact that he tried to sucker punch his way through a challenge by inserting some mathematics which didn't fully address the issue)
So the superluminal forward contraction is not observed as the Earth is outside the lightcone of the electron at the moment of acceleration. The light emitted long ago from Earth is inside the light cone and you will find see the appropriate Doppler shift. But only when you can see two events simultaneously in an inertial frame commoving with the electron can you use the simple Lorentz-Fitzgerald equation. And that covers the superluminal forward-looking case.
Posted here by MacM - the above acknowledges that superluminal contraction occurs but is hidden behind an event horizon. This is in contrast to the casual (and common response here) response that nothing occurs FTL)
Regarding reciprocity…probably not. It takes up too much time
(in part because your conundrums are good and in part because of the limitations imposed on me by the forum). If someone else wants to step up to the plate, I may throw in my two cents in the parallel thread, but I don’t want to be held responsible for following the debate and responding in a timely manner.
(
A decline to take me on for a 3rd debate, acknolwdging that my concepts to be properly addressed require a bit more than enuendo given by JR and others here.
The following link is to a final tribute posted by the physicist from debates done properly.
http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=277
The white flag could not be cut and pasted directly so was transferred to be linked.
**************************************
NOTE: He is entirely correct. It is my opinion we cannot disregard basic physics to embrace the concept of relativity. The Newtonian formulas of:
F = ma and v = at;
do not vanish or are not inapplicable when considering relative velocity. It is no coincidence that after 100 years+ of data that we find the only clock to ever lose time is the one that accelerated the most. That is the one that experienced F = ma. Clearly from an SR view where only "Relative" velocity are considered; as relative velocity increases it appears to each observer that it is the other that is accelerating and has all velocity such that each must become time dilated or experience length contraction, etc.
BUT THAT IS
NOT THE REALITY. The reality is that only one has the Newtonian experience of F=ma and is therefore achieving a change in absolute velocity via v = at and only one ever dilates, etc. The reciprocity mandated by a relative velocity view is untenable physics, unsupported by data and is not merely counter intuitive but is impossible and that must be recognized by any rational person. The fact that relavistic formulas work doesn't actually prove relativity because the formulas are only supported by one clock, etc and not both as predicted by SRT.
The fact that only one clock ever supports the prediction actually points to a more Lorentzian concept of some absolute velocity system.
The point of this post is to emphasize the lack of quality discussion on this forum and the tendancy to attempt to play down anything they disagree with verses actually responding.
The inapplicable posts and the shifting of the question from physics to this forum are perfect examples of the failure of this site. If you can't address theissue then slander it by calling it pseudoscience or better yet cast negative enuendo aganst the author.
Well JR I've clearly held discussions with many far more knowledgable than you and unlike you they have appreciated and respected my insight into relativity. Hardly anything you have claimed when trying to counter my points have turned out to be valid. That doesn't make my view over turn SRT but it has shown grey areas where even the physicst stated he could argue my view but preferred relativity. So I may not be 100% right but I damn sure am not 100% wrong.
The most important thing demonstrated by the debates was that while relavistic mathematics can be used and are accurate when dealing with one way calculations (as is always done in a lab); the theory of special relativity must be recognized as merely perceptional and not physical reality because the reciprocity it mandates is not supported or is rationally acceptable.
Further that the valid physical calculations in SRT are not exclusive to that theory, they are included in Lorentz Relativity which preceeded Einstein. So it is more correct to modernize Lorentz and completely dump SRT.
