Sagnac Limit

[MacM]

Mac wants to support some kind of superiority, like whoever moved this thread to Pseudoscience?

Unfortunately any nit wit in the in crowd can do that.

 

[James R]

MacM:

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.

i.e. Relativity tells us how to translate one person's observations in one reference frame to determine what a different observer in another reference frame will see. There is nothing controversial in that.

There is NOTHING ambiguous about that statement. Further more him saying so really isn't the issue. The issue is the reality as demonstrated by actual data. You have yet to show one case where reciprocity predicted by SRT can be supported by clocks physically accumulating differential time according to the observation during motion.

I have no idea what you mean by "physically accumulating differential time according to the observation during motion". You're just waffling as usual.

No SRT time dilation is illusion of motion. Actual time dilation is based on physical acceleration differentials and change in absolute velocity (energy). That is the only thing supported by data.

Show me the data.

The only repeat here is your failure to address the issues. And the only thing demolished is your credibility as a physicist.

No physicist thinks so, and frankly, the opinion of a nutter with a pet theory doesn't count. But thankyou for your politeness, MacM. You're a real gent.

He not only said my questions were very good but that I had stumped several of his colleges. The only difference here is you lack the physics understanding to even appreciate the question. I seriously have to question your education and qualifications as being a physicist.

I've entertained you and your nutty ideas for years. These other physicists are just fresh blood to foist your nuttiness on. The fact is simply that I am not so naive, because I've had more experience with you. That's all.

 

[MacM]

MacM:

i.e. Relativity tells us how to translate one person's observations in one reference frame to determine what a different observer in another reference frame will see. There is nothing controversial in that.

Nothing contriversial at all. It is precisely correct. It says what others "Will see". It says "Nothing" about what the clocks are actually doing. That is what I have always said and he said. So where have I misunderstood? I haven't. It is you that want to expand that statement to include the meaning that what you see is reality. Thatview is not supported by data.

I have no idea what you mean by "physically accumulating differential time according to the observation during motion".

Of course not it requires that you actually think about what you have just said. Viewing clocks in motion the relative velocity causes the illusion that eachi s ticking slower equally. It doesn't require a genius to realize that if each were actually ticking slower equally that they would stay in synch.

But the reality is if accelerations are not equal (regardless of vector) that the one with the greater F=ma *t will have accumulated less time upon subsequent direct comparison in a common rest frame.

It is ONLY the physical accumulation of time that affects the age of the twin, not the appearance of tick rate while in motion. The moving perception is not valid for both. It is only valid for the most accelerated body.

Now if you don't understand that, stop claiming jto be a physicist for that is what ALL data for 100 years has been trying to tell you but you refuse to see the facts for what they are. Time dialtion is NOT afunction of "Relative Velocity". Relative velocity is a function of F = ma which causes time dilation.

Now that wasn't so hard was it.

You're just waffling as usual.

I have never waffled. My statements have remained consistant. Yours hovwever, have been all over the map as a function of the corner you find yourself in. Like now when you actually have no valid response to the issue you will resort to innuendo or off topic, irresponsive diatribe.

Show me the data.

I have. Pick any test ever done and see if the application of SRT mathematics applies to both clocks or just one. Hmmmm.

No physicist thinks so, ...

An absolutely false claim. Many physicist think so but you and others that like relativity only claim those physicist are nutters.

and frankly, the opinion of a nutter with a pet theory doesn't count.

Having you call me a nutter is a compliment. Your failure to look beyond the4 covers of your favorite books and to think independantly of what you have been told by those you consider superior is most evident.

But thankyou for your politeness, MacM. You're a real gent.

Turn about is fair play. It is very gentleman like to call others nutters - don't you think?

I've entertained you and your nutty ideas for years. These other physicists are just fresh blood to foist your nuttiness on. The fact is simply that I am not so naive, because I've had more experience with you. That's all.

You would refuse to acknowledge the fact but frankly you have only disregarded points I have made and have continued to make false assertions of your own correctness regarding issues.

Nothing you have ever said alters the fact of history and data which actually suports my claim. It should be clear to everyone that your innuendos against me is not unique. You apply the same BS response toward other physicist that disagree with you (and there are many).

 

[James R]

MacM:

Nothing contriversial at all. It is precisely correct. It says what others "Will see". It says "Nothing" about what the clocks are actually doing. That is what I have always said and he said. So where have I misunderstood? I haven't.

Then we agree. Great.

It is you that want to expand that statement to include the meaning that what you see is reality. Thatview is not supported by data.

You're splitting hairs. I also think you imagine I've said something I haven't said. But it's not worth my time and effort to try yet again to explain your multiple misconceptions to you.

Viewing clocks in motion the relative velocity causes the illusion that eachi s ticking slower equally.

You're mixing reference frames, as usual. If I watch a clock flying past, it is no illusion that I see it ticking slower. And a person sitting on that clock doesn't see it tick any slower than normal.

These are verified facts.

It doesn't require a genius to realize that if each were actually ticking slower equally that they would stay in synch.

Switch on your brain, and you'll immediately realise this is rubbish.

But the reality is if accelerations are not equal (regardless of vector) that the one with the greater F=ma *t will have accumulated less time upon subsequent direct comparison in a common rest frame.

An unsupported statement such as this is worthless.

It is ONLY the physical accumulation of time that affects the age of the twin, not the appearance of tick rate while in motion. The moving perception is not valid for both. It is only valid for the most accelerated body.

Prove it.

Now if you don't understand that, stop claiming jto be a physicist...

I don't have to prove myself to you. The fact is, I am a physicist, and nothing you can say will change that. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

I will not respond to your babyish insulting of my qualifications from now on. I ask you now, just once, to cease and desist your false attacks.

I have. Pick any test ever done and see if the application of SRT mathematics applies to both clocks or just one. Hmmmm.

The whole point of SRT is that it applies to both clocks. It tells us how to translate one set of readings to another, in different reference frames.

One would have thought that you'd have grasped this fundamental point after 50 years. But I guess it's too much to hope for.

Having you call me a nutter is a compliment. Your failure to look beyond the4 covers of your favorite books and to think independantly of what you have been told by those you consider superior is most evident.

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Continuing to assert rubbish of the kind you assert is just willful blindness - as if your whole notion of self-worth depends on your nuttiness being correct. Really, get a life.

Turn about is fair play. It is very gentleman like to call others nutters - don't you think?

You went first. When your courtesy vanished, I felt less inclined to maintain a civil discourse with you. What did you expect?

Nothing you have ever said alters the fact of history and data which actually suports my claim.

You have never presented anything that supports your claims.

 

[2inquisitive]

James R,

If I watch a clock flying past, it is no illusion that I see it ticking slower.

No James R, you cannot 'watch' a clock fly past you at fast enough velocity that you can actually 'see' it tick slower than a clock you are holding. That is an illusion. What you can measure is a frequency shift in the signal it sends out. Does the signal shift to the same lower frequency when the clock is moving towards you as when the clock is receeding from you? Tell me, how do you actually measure the clock as ticking slower, what method in particular?

And a person sitting on that clock doesn't see it tick any slower than normal.

I am not aware of anyone actually sitting on a clock moving at a relativistic velocity. Do you have any links to back up your statement? How could that person actually know if his clock were ticking slower or faster unless he looked at a distant pulsar or something similar and determined if the measured 'beat' of the pulsar increased or decreased compared with an earlier measurement?

These are verified facts.

No James R, those are predictions of Special Relativity theory. All we 'know' is that unstable particles will exibit an increase in their energy and half-life if they are accelerated to a higher velocity. Do you believe unstable particles will also exibit an increase in their half-life if they are moved deeper into a gravity field? Why do you think this is true? There is no evidence a mechanical clock will 'tick slower' if it is accelerated to a higher velocity, or tick slower if moved into a higher gravitational potential.

 

[MacM]

James R,

You're splitting hairs.

Truth does not split hairs. Distortions do.

I also think you imagine I've said something I haven't said. But it's not worth my time and effort to try yet again to explain your multiple misconceptions to you.

Wishy-Washy flip flop denial.

You're mixing reference frames, as usual.

You continue to try and hide behind this farce of an escape goat. Of course frames are mixed. Both frames exist and both frames are components of relative velocity and it is the incorrect prediction of SRT that both frames will accumulate less time (not only just appear to tick slower). That is the falicy.

Both frames do not experience time dilation in terms of actual accumulated time. Only the frame having experienced F=ma accumulates less time.

If I watch a clock flying past, it is no illusion that I see it ticking slower. And a person sitting on that clock doesn't see it tick any slower than normal.

Now this is not only splitting hairs but is a gross falicy. I have never said that it is an illusion that you see the clock in motion ticking slower. I have said the observed slower ticking clock is an illusion. That is its "Apparent" tick rate is an illusion, not its actual local proper tick rate. Only a change in its actual local proper tick rate causes it to accumulate less time and not both clocks experience that but only the clock that accelerated does.

So "Real" time loss (not apparent - illusionary) tick rate is not a function of relative velocity but of acceleration.

These are verified facts.

The ONLY thing ever verified in 100 years of data is that an "Accelerated" clock ticks slower than a resting clock. The resting clock has never agreed with the prediction of SRT that itss relative velocity casued it to lose time. It didn't- It only appeared to tick slower during motion but actually had no change in tick rate; hence SRT is false.

“ It doesn't require a genius to realize that if each were actually ticking slower equally that they would stay in synch. ”

Switch on your brain, and you'll immediately realise this is rubbish.

This statement is rubbish. Anybody that understands the prediction of SRT where symmetry (equal acceleration) is involved requires that both clocks tick more slowly than at rest but decrease equally if their acceleration is equal. Under such conditions every physicist (except you apparently) understands and will say that those clocks will remain synchronized. Shssss.

I don't have to prove myself to you. The fact is, I am a physicist, and nothing you can say will change that. If you don't like it, that's your problem.[

I will not respond to your babyish insulting of my qualifications from now on. I ask you now, just once, to cease and desist your false attacks.

Oh, wow, a little tit-for-tat really winds your spring doesn't it. You may have had some formal physics education. That I don't know for sure. What I do know is you either lack common sense or deliberately circumvent discussion with garbage and personal insults and attacks and never address issues. Not very professional regarldess of your formal education.

The whole point of SRT is that it applies to both clocks. It tells us how to translate one set of readings to another, in different reference frames.

One would have thought that you'd have grasped this fundamental point after 50 years. But I guess it's too much to hope for.

Speaking of grasping points. I have NEVER disagreed with that. I have, and do claim, that such readings (between frames) is illusionary and not real time dialtion iin that when such clocks are brought to a common rest frame and compared only one will show time dilation and it is always the clock that actually accelerated and not the resting clock.

So perhaps in 50 years you will grasp what I have repeatedly said. CLOCKS WHEN COMPARED IN A COMMON REST FRAME SHOW THAT THE ONLY REAL TIME DILATION IS THE RESULT OF ACCELERATION - NOT MERE RELATIVE VELOCITY.

Now this statement is consistant with every test and data ever recorded in over 100 years.

Keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out. Continuing to assert rubbish of the kind you assert is just willful blindness - as if your whole notion of self-worth depends on your nuttiness being correct. Really, get a life.

Look if you lack the competence to actually address such issues then just admit it and stopo with the personal attacks they contribute nothing.

You went first. When your courtesy vanished, I felt less inclined to maintain a civil discourse with you. What did you expect?

Well I certainly diagree. You have always attacked first. I do tend to retaliate but so be it. If you don't like it stop doing it. Actually be civil and addriess the issue in physics terms.

You have never presented anything that supports your claims.

My claims are consistant with data. You have never shown otherwise. So data proves my claims. Get real.

 

[James R]

MacM:

This is a waste of my time. Come back to me when you have a substantive argument, and I'll discuss it with you.

Have a nice life.

 

[Tom2]

From here

But if I want to have my own understanding of, say, relativity, questioned and challenged, I'll probably do better here.

Is this thread what you meant by that? Because I've got to say, I am hard pressed to think of what it is about the cranks here that is so helpful.

 

[James R]

Tom2:

Search the archives and you will find that I have given MacM's ideas a thorough going over. That generated a number of very useful posts from me about clock "paradoxes" and so on, even including helpful spacetime diagrams. Quite useful for students who may be new to relativity and some of its ideas (like MacM was at the time).

MacM, of course, learnt nothing. But never mind.

 

[MacM]

Tom2:

Search the archives and you will find that I have given MacM's ideas a thorough going over. That generated a number of very useful posts from me about clock "paradoxes" and so on, even including helpful spacetime diagrams. Quite useful for students who may be new to relativity and some of its ideas (like MacM was at the time).

MacM, of course, learnt nothing. But never mind.

Typical horseshit, self congratulatory but totally false assertions. NOthing you have ever said addressed the issue. All you have been able to do is recite books written by others as physics law, even when the books are clearly either wrong or inapplicable to the issue.

You have never addressed the issue. You only refer to the "Perceptions" during relative motion. That is not, and has never been, at issue with me. Further inspite of your repeated attempts to claim I don't understand, I do, but I also reject it based on issues not addressed and issues which are counter to SRT claims.

BTW. If you review my writing here you will see that I have claimed numerous times that the Big Bang was BS and that it was more of a Big Rip. I also have claimed our universe is but a finite bubble in a larger creation full of bubbles.

Well I didn't envision one universe collapsing to create ours but the recent study does indicate multiverse and that our origin was more of a Big Rip of a finite volume (they call it Big Bounce).

So for all your BS atacks on me I stand rather humble at the insight I have granted myself to have made yet another priori, (8) now BTW. How many do you have smart ass.

You might do well to listen to this crank.

http://www.science.psu.edu/alert/Bojowald6-2007.htm

 

[James R]

You're still wasting my time, MacM.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Tell me, how do you actually measure the clock as ticking slower, what method in particular?

We measure the time from start to finish. Yet, no one actually agrees on the starting point or the finish.

lol

 

[2inquisitive]

We measure the time from start to finish. Yet, no one actually agrees on the starting point or the finish.

lol

No, the official method of measuring time is with a cesium clock, well defined.
Special Theory relies on a fundamental error in the use of 'rest frames' and postulate that the one-way speed of light is 'constant' for all observers, regardless of their velocity, resulting in mistakes in distance measurement.

I can show you the error in a thought experiment.

Assume we have a pitcher on the pitching mound and a batter in the batter's box. The pitcher throws a 100mph fastball, travelling toward the batter's head. The batter sees the ball comming and jerks his head backwards at 20mph before the ball hits him and while the ball is in flight.
(1) In the pitcher's rest frame, he sees the batter move his head to the rear at 20mph. The ball will impact at a relative velocity of 100mph minus 20mph, equals 80mph in the picther's rest frame.
(2) In the batter's rest frame, his head does not move rearward, instead the pitcher moves rearward at 20mph. The problem is that the pitcher does not move until after he has released the ball. Using the pitcher as a frame results in a mistaken velocity of impact of 100mph and a mistake in the distance the ball has travelled before impact. It is obvious we must use ball itself as a frame of reference wrt the batter's 'rest frame' in order to obtain the correct results.
(3) Now assume it is a photon instead of a baseball travelling between the pitcher and batter. Special Theory prohibits the use of the photon's frame of reference, so we are left with the pitcher in one rest frame and the batter's head in the other 'rest frame'. Again, there are no mistakes when the pitcher is used as a rest frame for the emitted photon because the batter's head moves rearward in his frame of reference after the photon is emitted. The distance will increase between the pitcher and batter while the photon is in flight. But look at what happens when the batter's head is used as the 'rest frame'. The distance between the point of release of the photon and the point of impact of the photon/head does not increase because the batter's head is at rest, not moving while the photon is in flight. You end up with two different distance measurements according to which 'rest frame' you are measuring from. That is also where 'relativity of simultaneity' comes from, which is what you were alluding to with your disagreements of starting and finishing points.

 

[Tom2]

But look at what happens when the batter's head is used as the 'rest frame'. The distance between the point of release of the photon and the point of impact of the photon/head does not increase because the batter's head is at rest, not moving while the photon is in flight.

Of course the distance between the point of release of the photon and the point of impact of the photon increases in the head's frame.

If the head is at rest, then the point of release of the photon is moving.

 

[2inquisitive]

Of course the distance between the point of release of the photon and the point of impact of the photon increases in the head's frame.

If the head is at rest, then the point of release of the photon is moving.

Yes, but the point of release of the photon from the pitcher is at one specific location and the moment the photon impacts the batter's head after a period of time (while the photon is in flight), the pitcher has then moved to a more distant location. Extending this example, assume we are monitoring a spaceship moving away from us at .866c. When the spaceship is 10 lightyears from us in our frame of reference, it emits a photon towards us. It takes the photon 10 of our years for the photon to reach us in our rest frame. The point of release of the photon is what we measure, not the location of the spaceship when the photon impacts us. In the spaceship's frame of reference, the Earth is receeding while the photon is in flight. In one frame of reference, we are measuring the length of the photon's (or ball's) path, in the other frame we are measuring the distance between the spaceship and Earth (or pitcher and batter) after the photon has impacted.

 

[MacM]

You're still wasting my time, MacM.

Ditto James R. Your mouth moves but nothing ov value comes out.

 

[James R]

You're stupid.
No, you're stupid.
I'm better than you.
No you aren't. You're stupid.
etc.etc.

 

[MacM]

You're stupid.
No, you're stupid.
I'm better than you.
No you aren't. You're stupid.
etc.etc.

I really wonder if one day you will actually address the issue at hand or just try to continue to two step your way arond it with BS.

The issue is the fact that SAGNAC has been and can easily be measured. It shows the second postulate does not apply to curved motion. The question is how large a radius do you claim we will find that the affect mysteriously vanishes to become SRT where light velocity is constant regardless of motion?

 

[Tom2]

Yes, but the point of release of the photon from the pitcher is at one specific location and the moment the photon impacts the batter's head after a period of time (while the photon is in flight), the pitcher has then moved to a more distant location.

OK granted, but I still don't see why you think there's some error here.

Back to the thought experiment.

Assume we have a pitcher on the pitching mound and a batter in the batter's box. The pitcher throws a 100mph fastball, travelling toward the batter's head. The batter sees the ball comming and jerks his head backwards at 20mph before the ball hits him and while the ball is in flight.

OK.

(1) In the pitcher's rest frame, he sees the batter move his head to the rear at 20mph. The ball will impact at a relative velocity of 100mph minus 20mph, equals 80mph in the picther's rest frame.

I see you're using Galilean relativity, but OK fine.

(2) In the batter's rest frame, his head does not move rearward, instead the pitcher moves rearward at 20mph. The problem is that the pitcher does not move until after he has released the ball. Using the pitcher as a frame results in a mistaken velocity of impact of 100mph and a mistake in the distance the ball has travelled before impact. It is obvious we must use ball itself as a frame of reference wrt the batter's 'rest frame' in order to obtain the correct results.

You just said in point (1) that in the pitcher's rest frame the ball moves at 80mph, and now you say that it is 100mph. Did you perhaps mean the batter's rest frame? If so, then you are mistaken. Using Galilean relativity the batter sees the ball approach his head at 80mph. Using SR, the value is slightly smaller.

(3) Now assume it is a photon instead of a baseball travelling between the pitcher and batter. Special Theory prohibits the use of the photon's frame of reference, so we are left with the pitcher in one rest frame and the batter's head in the other 'rest frame'. Again, there are no mistakes when the pitcher is used as a rest frame for the emitted photon because the batter's head moves rearward in his frame of reference after the photon is emitted.

OK.

The distance will increase between the pitcher and batter while the photon is in flight. But look at what happens when the batter's head is used as the 'rest frame'. The distance between the point of release of the photon and the point of impact of the photon/head does not increase because the batter's head is at rest, not moving while the photon is in flight.

OK, so in the batter's frame the emitter has moved away from the point at which it released the photon. No problem there.

You end up with two different distance measurements according to which 'rest frame' you are measuring from. That is also where 'relativity of simultaneity' comes from, which is what you were alluding to with your disagreements of starting and finishing points.

Yes, precisely. This is exactly what SR predicts. You can't simultaneously hold the speed of light invariant and still take spatial and temporal intervals to be invariant. Everyone knows this.

Why do you think this is a mistake?

 

[Tom2]

And while we're at it...

No James R, you cannot 'watch' a clock fly past you at fast enough velocity that you can actually 'see' it tick slower than a clock you are holding. That is an illusion. What you can measure is a frequency shift in the signal it sends out. Does the signal shift to the same lower frequency when the clock is moving towards you as when the clock is receeding from you? Tell me, how do you actually measure the clock as ticking slower, what method in particular?

It is done with subatomic particles all the time. In fact the phenomenon is so well understood that physicists actually use it to prolong the life of unstable particles, so that they can be better studied. As for "what method in particular", I'm sure you will have no trouble turning up a reference to an actual experiment by doing a brief Google search.

I am not aware of anyone actually sitting on a clock moving at a relativistic velocity. Do you have any links to back up your statement?

Of course, every clock is moving at a relativistic velocity according to some frame of reference. So if you want an example, just look at the clock on your computer. But then naturally you'll want to know how someone in that other frame will observe your clock to be ticking slower than his own. Of course, we can't test that without the ability to build a fast spaceship. This brings us back to subatomic particles, because they are the only objects that we can push around that fast.

How could that person actually know if his clock were ticking slower or faster unless he looked at a distant pulsar or something similar and determined if the measured 'beat' of the pulsar increased or decreased compared with an earlier measurement?

There's no need to look at a pulsar, all you have to do is compare two identically functioning clocks in two different states of motion. Again, this is done with subatomic particles all the time.

No James R, those are predictions of Special Relativity theory. All we 'know' is that unstable particles will exibit an increase in their energy and half-life if they are accelerated to a higher velocity.

Yes, that is true. I don't know why you put "know" in quotes, though. We know it, period.

Do you believe unstable particles will also exibit an increase in their half-life if they are moved deeper into a gravity field?

Of course. Gravitational time dilation has been tested with atomic clocks, as I'm sure you know. So we can at least say that electromagnetic interactions are subject to it. Admittedly, I am not aware of any tests of dilated particle lifetimes that decay by strong or weak channels, though.

Why do you think this is true?

Umm...Because on a macro scale, our universe functions pretty much the way Einstein described it?

There is no evidence a mechanical clock will 'tick slower' if it is accelerated to a higher velocity, or tick slower if moved into a higher gravitational potential.

A subatomic particle is a mechanical clock.