MacM:
There is a lot to reply to here.
First, regarding my
Special Relativistic time dilation and length contraction thread:
You have tried to drag the discussion from the current thread into that thread. As noted at the top of that thread "This thread is for those who want to learn how a couple of the well-known effects from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity can be derived from first principles."
You are free to discuss the details of the derivation in that thread if you wish, but it is not appropriate to make assertions about the theory of relativity there without mathematical proof, since that thread specifically disproves your assertions.
I have therefore moved your inappropriate post from that thread. If you want to continue a discussion there, please start by pointing out which step(s), if any, in the derivation, are incorrect. Be specific.
Your post to that thread, which really should have been in the current thread, is reproduced here in full:
James R,
I do find this post interesting. Not that it illustrates anything new or not understood but that it apparently is an effort to continue to advocate something which you yourself have admitted is as a minimum misleading or worse to perpetuate concepts known to be false.
Relative velocity produces no net accumulated time differances in clocks.
Time dilation is only observational, a perception of a moving observer and not a physical reality.
When you claim, as you attempt to here, at least by innuendo, that a clock will have a measureable shift in displayed time (or that the age of one driver will be different than the other {TwinParadox} when compared to i.e. - two identical clocks one in the Green car and one in the Blue car, you are deliberately lying.
You know better. For either clock in this case to display anything other than the same amount of accumulated time (or drivers ages) as a function of the relative velocity between the cars actually VIOLATES Relativity.
The H&K Atomic Clock Test claims to have proven the relative velocity affect predicted by Relativity actually VIOLATES Relativity.
Now be honest and tell your readers what the two clocks will read after a one hour trip.
Both will read 1 hour. Where is your time dilation?????
I will now reply to that post.
I do find [your derivation] interesting. Not that it illustrates anything new or not understood but that it apparently is an effort to continue to advocate something which you yourself have admitted is as a minimum misleading or worse to perpetuate concepts known to be false.
Your assertion that I have said something contradictory is false. I will address that point below.
Relative velocity produces no net accumulated time differances in clocks.
I have clearly shown that it does. Refer to the derivation.
When you claim, as you attempt to here, at least by innuendo, that a clock will have a measureable shift in displayed time (or that the age of one driver will be different than the other {TwinParadox} when compared to i.e. - two identical clocks one in the Green car and one in the Blue car, you are deliberately lying.
It is not innuendo. My post was solidly mathematical. It infers nothing. Each step follows inexorably from what has gone before. There are no lies in that post. If there were, you should be able to point out where they are.
Either point out which step is wrong or shut up. Unsupported assertions are worthless.
--------------
I have also deleted your latest posts from the "Student understanding of Special Relativity" thread, since they are another attempt to drag discussion from the current thread to an inappropriate place.
The issues in that thread are completely different from the issues here. IF you want to discuss whether SR is true or false, you can do it in this thread, or in another thread, or you can start a totally new thread. If you want to discuss student understanding of SR, then a thread exists for that, too. Don't mix up the two.
--------------
Now we turn to your responses in the current thread. Referring to my special relativity derivation, you wrote:
I'll give it a read but I really don't see the necessity. You have already conceeded primary issues regarding no measureable time dilation due to relative velocity.
You misunderstand. The post you keep referring to regarding my "admission" considered a different scenario to the one presented in the original "two clock" problem in this thread, and also different to the "2 car" problem used in my derivation.
I agreed that there would be no difference in clock readings in a situation where the clocks were started and stopped
symmetrically. To be explicit, let me give you that scenario:
"Two clocks, A and B, set out from the origin, with clock A travelling at +0.45c and clock B travelling at -0.45c relative to a stationary observer. All motion is at constant speed for the whole time. When each clock reads a pre-agreed time in its rest frame, that clock sends out a light pulse towards the other clock. Each clock calls the time the pulse is sent out time "zero". Each clock continues to run locally until the pulse is received from the other clock, at which time the local clock is stopped. The two clocks are then brought back together and their elapsed times compared."
In this scenario, both clocks will show the same final reading.
This scenario differs from the 2-clock scenario presented earlier in this thread in that 2
different signals are used to stop the clocks. In contrast, in our original scenario, and in my derivation thread, only one signal is used. The scenario presented in the paragraph above is a symmetrical one, and so no overall time difference is recorded. The orginal scenario is not symmetrical, so the effects of time dilation are not masked there.
Regarding my derivation scenario, you write:
Now re-write you scenario and reverse the direction of the light flow and deny that the entire situation is not alos reversed such that what you call time dilation vanishes in reality when both cars consider each others clocks accumulated time after the trip.
If we reverse the direction of the light signal, we get the opposite result. That is correct. But we should expect that. The situation is not symmetrical.
Now show me both cars views of time dilation of the other cars clock.
That would complicate matters, and is unnecessary. It is easier to deal with the actual times, rather than just the perceived times, and, after all, it is the actual times that we are interested in. On the other hand, the perceived times
can be used to derive the relativistic Doppler equation. I found that out by accident when I was working out the mathematics, but I didn't think it was important to include in my post, since that was not the point of the post.
Set an artificial t0, show the respective views of time dilation. If you show anything other than "No Net Time Differential" in the clocks you have either made an error or violated Relativity.
No. As explained, the scenario is not symmetrical.
As I have shown you only get what you call time dilation due to relative velocity if you only consider one half of the mandates of Relativity.
Shown? Where? I don't see your mathematical analysis anywhere.
-------------------
Regarding your definition of time:
"Time is what clocks measure" is absurd. I have made the point that I can call a pan of water a clock and judge time by the evaportation rate. I don't think you can say the pot is measuring time. ALL clocks are nothing but processes. None of these processes can be claimed to be measuring time but function (and change) through time and outside enfluences.
A pan of evaporating water is a clock, and it does measure time. It just doesn't do it very well, because it is too suceptible to outside influences. A
good clock is
only influenced by time, ideally. Of course, in reality, no clock is perfect. Some are better than others. A pan clock is not a good clock, but it is a clock. An atomic clock is a better clock, though still not perfect. We have to live with the fact that we can't measure time perfectly, but that doesn't mean that what we measure isn't time.
----------------
For the record, MacM said:
If I have not gotten a response within another week (16 Oct) I will post Para 4, with my own concerns as to the conflict I see with other things he has said.
We shall see.
----------------
On the issue of your definition of time as an energy flow:
I have no idea what you mean. The only units of "flow" I know are volume per second, which would be m3/s. That's not the same as energy, so energy is not a flow.
Not so fast. J = m/s2
m/s is flow as in motion. Being seconds squared simply means the flow is not linear. Further more I would suspect that any definition of time-energy will require different units than we are accustomed to as in Joules. Something like the amalgamation of time-space or UniKEF.
Errors galore.
* 1 Joule is not 1 m/s<sup>2</sup>. I gave you the correct units above.
* m/s is a velocity.
* m/s<sup>2</sup> is an acceleration.
Your assertion that different units are required is useless. You're just waffling. You have no idea how time could be an "energy flow". It just sounded good to you when you made it up. It is a useless and self-contradictory concept.
You do have trouble assimulating information don't you. Energy is time, time is energy, it is energy flow which causes events and hence the concept of time flow.
In the same sentence, you say time is both energy
and an energy flow. Which is it? You're contradicting yourself. You're confused. Poor MacM.
Then why do you use a light signal in you car example. Granted there are other forms of information, i.e. - sound, heat, etc., but this discussion has been about Relativity and Relativity in general is not dealing with sound, etc but with the finite and invariant speed of light.
Light is the only thing whose speed we
know is a constant. That is why it is easiest to use light signalling in many examples. But there's nothing special about it as an information carrier. Information can be carried by all kinds of things - sound, light, messages cut into a stick, etc.
-----------------
On the definition of a reference frame:
Now as to your repeated request for a definition of a frame.
An inertial frame is a set of coordinates which can be used to specify an event or existance.
i.e. - A exists at x,y,z,t. Which are the 3 spartial coordinates and t is the temporal or time at the location.
Other events or existances are designated by either t1, t2, t3, etc or in case of only two frames is designated as t and t', etc.
So, can two events at different locations and different times exist in the same reference frame? Yes or no?
Physics are invariant in all frames but the relationship between referance frames is found via Lorentz Transformations.
But you don't believe this, do you?
-----------------
More MacM mathematical mistakes.
A simple check of this modus operandi clarifies that issue.
X = Y<sup>2</sup>
Y = X<sup>2</sup>
If I look at X or Y ONLY, mathematically I will get a result that claims they increase as a function of the product of Y * Y or X * X. But looking at the reality of the situation one finds that the X, Y relationship is linear and and there is no non-linear result between X and Y.
If I susbstitute I can write:
X = (X<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup> = X<sup>4</sup>
and
Y = (Y<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup> = Y<sup>4</sup>
X<sup>4</sup> = Y<sup>4</sup>
X = Y
Y = X
There is no non-linear relationship.
Ouch!
What sloppy, mistake-ridden mathematics. And you've relied on it
twice, so far.
Let's do this properly, shall we?
X = Y<sup>2</sup>
Y = X<sup>2</sup>
Using the first equation in the second one, we get:
Y = X<sup>2</sup> = (Y<sup>2</sup>)<sup>2</sup> = Y<sup>4</sup>
Rearranging:
Y<sup>4</sup> - Y = 0
Y(Y<sup>3</sup> - 1) = 0
So, either Y = 0 or Y = 1.
If Y=0 then X=0.
If Y=1 then X=1.
In other words,
MacM's conclusion that X=Y should be replaced by X=Y=0 or X=Y=1.. X and Y are not only equal but constant, and limited to values of either 0 or 1.
It's just bad maths.
In Relativity:
T2 = sqrt[t1( 1 - v2/c2)]
T1 = sqrt[t2( 1 - v2/c2)]
Wrong, as pointed out by Paul T.
Just FYI, I have many more ways to make the calculation. I have picked the method that I thought was the simplest and might suit the level of your intelligence.
Other
wrong methods, I assume.
I might suggest just whose intelligence is being demonstrated here. As I have cautioned James R., your continued practice of making personal attacks does not fend well your claim of superiority, especially when such flaws of claims are so obvious.
As obvious as claiming that X=Y<sup>2</sup> and Y=X<sup>2</sup> imply that X=Y?
hehehehe.
Think there is no way for you to understand the issue since the simplest math that I could think of, the one that even grade school kids should understand, you are still unable to grasp. What can I say?
Those grade school kids are obviously a bit brighter than you, MacM. They can spot your errors.
It has become clear in this thread (and others) who actually has a better grasp on Relativity and reality.
It sure has.
