Twin paradox (Pete and MacM)
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
- Status
How about:
Consider the extended discussion between Pete and MacM (and others) regarding special relativity.
Who has demonstrated a sound understanding of special relativity?
MacM only
Pete only
Both have demonstrated an equally sound understanding
Both have demonstrated sound understanding, but Mac's understanding is better
Both have demonstrated sound understanding, but Pete's understanding is better
Neither have demonstrated a sound understanding of special relativity
A rating is also good...
One percentage each could be reasonably indicative.
We could each sit an exam on SR for that matter, if we could find a mutually agreeable examiner.
Consider the extended discussion between Pete and MacM (and others) regarding special relativity.
Who has demonstrated a sound understanding of special relativity?
MacM only
Pete only
Both have demonstrated an equally sound understanding
Both have demonstrated sound understanding, but Mac's understanding is better
Both have demonstrated sound understanding, but Pete's understanding is better
Neither have demonstrated a sound understanding of special relativity
A rating is also good...
One percentage each could be reasonably indicative.
We could each sit an exam on SR for that matter, if we could find a mutually agreeable examiner.
No, no, I've followed you entirely. What I was saying was that I didn't think the relative views of motion and dimension affected the energy requirements for each object to achieve the mutual velocity.MacM said:
Can you give a link to JamesR's analysis of the energy situation? I didn't see it in the thread.
Pete has demonstrated his understanding of Relativity, 100%.
MacM has demonstrated his understanding of Relativity 100%.
Pete has demonstrated his understanding of MacM's understanding of Relativity 0%.
MacM has demonstrated his understanding of Pete's understanding of Relativity 0%.
I think MacM deserves a little more credit for his thinking through of the consequences of SR than many people here are willing to give him. I personally have had to do a lot of thinking on this energy issue, and every time I think I've got it and can write about it, I think of a potential answer that MacM could give. I know he's wrong (a century of scientific exploration of this subject matter cannot just be sniffed at) but I don't always have the tools to show that.
On the other hand, MacM clearly does not see that none of what he has said clearly demonstrates the "reduction of efficiency in energy transfer at high velocities" that he claims as a clear alternative theory. There is no mechanism for the reduction of efficiency, neither is there any clear reason why said inefficiency in energy transmission could not be reduced to zero (allowing matter to travel faster than light). I'm reminded of a guy who wrote a book complained of by Isaac Asimov. He was given the proofs and asked to provide an introduction. On the first page he read that this guy had written something like, "Scientists state that the red shift of distant galaxies is caused by their moving away from us. I think that interstellar matter is absorbing the higher frequencies of the light from those galaxies and causing them to appear redder than they truly are." Asimov put the book down and sighed "Since this person clearly did not understand what the red shift actually was, what on earth was the point of my reading his opinion about it?"
My biggest objection to your theory, Dan, is that it isn't remotely beautiful! Relativity is a beautiful theory where the structure of space time gives a perfect explanation for all sorts of weird and wonderful phenomena, and has opened our eyes to the fact that our common sense view of the Universe is far short of the sometimes bizarre reality. The Rubber Sheet universe is an elegant metaphorical construction. But where is the beauty and elegance in "increased inefficiency of energy transfer"?
MacM has demonstrated his understanding of Relativity 100%.
Pete has demonstrated his understanding of MacM's understanding of Relativity 0%.
MacM has demonstrated his understanding of Pete's understanding of Relativity 0%.
I think MacM deserves a little more credit for his thinking through of the consequences of SR than many people here are willing to give him. I personally have had to do a lot of thinking on this energy issue, and every time I think I've got it and can write about it, I think of a potential answer that MacM could give. I know he's wrong (a century of scientific exploration of this subject matter cannot just be sniffed at) but I don't always have the tools to show that.
On the other hand, MacM clearly does not see that none of what he has said clearly demonstrates the "reduction of efficiency in energy transfer at high velocities" that he claims as a clear alternative theory. There is no mechanism for the reduction of efficiency, neither is there any clear reason why said inefficiency in energy transmission could not be reduced to zero (allowing matter to travel faster than light). I'm reminded of a guy who wrote a book complained of by Isaac Asimov. He was given the proofs and asked to provide an introduction. On the first page he read that this guy had written something like, "Scientists state that the red shift of distant galaxies is caused by their moving away from us. I think that interstellar matter is absorbing the higher frequencies of the light from those galaxies and causing them to appear redder than they truly are." Asimov put the book down and sighed "Since this person clearly did not understand what the red shift actually was, what on earth was the point of my reading his opinion about it?"
My biggest objection to your theory, Dan, is that it isn't remotely beautiful! Relativity is a beautiful theory where the structure of space time gives a perfect explanation for all sorts of weird and wonderful phenomena, and has opened our eyes to the fact that our common sense view of the Universe is far short of the sometimes bizarre reality. The Rubber Sheet universe is an elegant metaphorical construction. But where is the beauty and elegance in "increased inefficiency of energy transfer"?
This was where I balked. I can see how time and space are frame dependent, but I could not see how energy could be frame dependent. This was my biggest problem in refuting your "it takes more energy to move towards a quasar mass". Now I will read further and try to understand it.JamesR said:
Silas said:
Fair assessment but they will disagree.You are right on here but don't seem to realize that this view is supported more by observation than is Relativity. Certainly I cannot claim to prove my view but I think it more difficult to prove it false.
It really is most logical that if propagation of EM waves (including light) have a terminal velocity of v = c, it requires a differential force to accelerate something and as one approaches this terminal velocity there will be less differential force created hence less acceleration. At v = c, no differential force can be be generated and hence no further acceleration regardless of the power put behind the finite limited speed of the driving energy.
My biggest objection to your theory, Dan, is that it isn't remotely beautiful! Relativity is a beautiful theory where the structure of space time gives a perfect explanation for all sorts of weird and wonderful phenomena, and has opened our eyes to the fact that our common sense view of the Universe is far short of the sometimes bizarre reality. The Rubber Sheet universe is an elegant metaphorical construction. But where is the beauty and elegance in "increased inefficiency of energy transfer"?
I can agree on the elegance of the mathematical symbosis of Relativity but beauty does not necessarliy represent reality. It is the reality that to me is more important than pretty fairy tales.
With regard to mass exceeding the speed of light (FTL). I personally think it is quite likely and that we are already seeing it. There are numerous objects observed which substantially exceed the speed of light in the universe.
James R., seems to think the "Illusion Solution" provided by Relativity solves that issue. It doesn't. Only a small percentage of such observations are caused by the line of sight illusion of FTL. Failure of seeing a Blue Shift in such FTL data is the first hint that the "Illusion Solution" is incorrect.
My personal view is that independantly accelerated inertial frames (i.e. a rocket where there is no relative velocity between the fuel, thrust engine and rocket load) are not prohibited from exceeding v = c realtive to you or any other object but that at v = > c Lorentz Contraction causes it to cease to exist in our dimension. It continues to exist at a higher energy plane. Still seeing no affect upon itself as being at rest.
This does conflict with the current claims about Relativity and the energy, times etc., mathematics but these are not proven concepts, inspite of the claims that they are. There are sound alternatives to the interpretation of all such data.
For example the finding of light invariance and finite speed does not mean that other objects also must operate in that realm. That is not unlike claiming that heat transfer must act in accordance with velocity of sound.
There is simply no basis to make that correlation.
Making that correlation is the basis of Relativity but it may all well be just a house of cards.
Last edited:
ONCE AGAIN, more energy according to who;s frame of reference. The earth frame of reference and the ship frame will see no change due to the quasar. You continue to claim that relativity says you do, but the very simple fact it does not.
If you disagreee show why. I'm still waiting to see just how you messed up the math/frames enough to believe this.
No, you and Pete have both demonstrated how much you know about relativity.
Yet another idea you had which was demonstrated wrong by many people, yet you still claim you are right. Typical.
Hehe, if only there were some basis to this beyond MacM's imagination.
The amount of energy needed to accelerate particles is well know. It's fairly simple math for just about everyone here besides you.
You are damn right it could be, and nobody is arguing that. However nothing that you have posted here has in any way shed light it being a 'house of cards'. No worthwhile experiments, no correct math to speak of and no understanding of the theory you are trying to blow down.
Well energy is mass*distance^2*sqrt(time). All three are variables here, so energy can change. The ideas of 'rest'/total energy come into play here. In the Earth's frame of reference a rocket will appear to the amount of energy you'd expect regardless of direction. In the quasar's frame of reference the velcoity term of total energy is different, and you'll compute a higher energy.Silas said:
Persol said:
What about the dispartity between the mathematics for energy and the mathematics for accelertion in different frames do you fail to comprehend?
Without doing the calculations all over again. Assume you have a 1,000,000/1 increase in energy required but you only have a 1,000/1 change in acceleration per Relativity (which is what happens if you follow everything through) between such frames.
Are you really so daft that you do not see that this relationship requires the relative velocity of all frames to impact your most local frames physics?
Been done.
There has never been a challenge much less any such proof. Bubba.
It is called logical evaluation of observation. Someting you seem incapable of doing.
Your innuendo is invalid but further how does knowledge about energy required to accelerate particles alter the issue of if it is due to energy transfer efficiency decrease vs mass increase.? It doesn't. I have never argued the increase does not exist. I argue that you (and others) mis-interprete what is the cause.
Relativity makes it observer based and not finite but dependant on millions of observers.
I make it finite based on a logical physical principle. Please show just how you would propose to accelerate a mass >c when the propelling magnetic field has a propagation velocity limit of v = c. :bugeye: Seems at v = c you will be unable to generate any differential force hence will get no further acceleration regardles of the power you put beined the v = c field propelling the mass. Hmmmm. Makes sense. Much more sense than claiming the energy required depends on who is looking at the particle, I think.
A lot of biased hot air not worth the time to respond to. Nothing you have posted even implies much less disproves the energy transfer efficiency decrease concept.
Last edited:
Guys,
It is amazing how people can spend their time talking on subjects they have no clue about…
The same amount of time spent on reading the basics of Math and Physics would bring a lot more pleasure and use to many of you.
How somebody can pretend to create a new theory in Physics if he has no clue that equation x=x^4 has four and only four roots (the famous Gauss theorem, one should learn in high school)?
In other forum I discussed wit MacM his UNIKEF and explained to him and other members how stupid whole his insinuations are. It is not a Science, but pure Anti-Science, there is nothing logical to discuss. But he still goes in other Forums and is wasting his and other peoples time… Enough is enough. We should simply ignore his posts.
It is amazing how people can spend their time talking on subjects they have no clue about…
The same amount of time spent on reading the basics of Math and Physics would bring a lot more pleasure and use to many of you.
How somebody can pretend to create a new theory in Physics if he has no clue that equation x=x^4 has four and only four roots (the famous Gauss theorem, one should learn in high school)?
In other forum I discussed wit MacM his UNIKEF and explained to him and other members how stupid whole his insinuations are. It is not a Science, but pure Anti-Science, there is nothing logical to discuss. But he still goes in other Forums and is wasting his and other peoples time… Enough is enough. We should simply ignore his posts.
Yuriy said:
Stick it in your ear you flake. You don't have what it takes to explain anything to me. You just happen to have no idea who is looking at my work as we speak dipshit.
Yuriy were you banned on Physlink or did you just throw in the towel after people got tired of your know-it-all attitude?
He likes to tell everybody how smart he is and exactly how everything works and offers to give you classes. Be careful James R, he is after your job. He'll offer to be your mentor soon.
Welcome to SciFi Yuriy, this could be fun. I rather enjoyed shoving some of your BS where the sun didn't shine.
Last edited:
This is called relativity for a reason? Show a specific example (including the math to back it up). Currently you are talking out of your ass and mixing frames.MacM said:
ONCE AGAIN, no it doesn't. One of the fundamental things about relativity is that other frames/velocities will not affect what you percieve in your frame (excluding some form of energy transfer).
Particle accelerators once again disagree with you.
MacM, we could give a shit about your concept. We've seen your other ideas and based on that won't both to look at new theories of yours.
In case you forgot, the topic wasn't MacM's explanation of energy transfer efficiency decrease... it was the twin paradox and relativity. Even assuming that your theory had math to back it up, that says nothing about relativity being incorrect.
Ah yes. The entire scientific community is full of dipshits because they don't agree with you and demand you to understand that which you complain about. Now it all makes sense. Damn scientists....
Persol said:
No they don't dumb ass. They resulting increase in required energy is the same - twit.
The first half of this sentance is your loss not mine. The second half shows why we should disregard just about anything you have to say, it is incoherent.
And your responses say nothing about my theory being incorrect either.
Nope. The dip shits are those that think they know it all and just go around parroting the company line without ever thinking for themselves. I really don't have a big problem with people that choose to believe in things I do not believe in. I do have a problem with those that have no useful comment but claim to be an expert and talk nothing but BS.
Wait, give me one experiment which disagrees with what I said.
There isn't a signle one that supports "that this relationship requires the relative velocity of all frames to impact your most local frames physics".
Change both to bother. You really don't have any room to complain about someone's typos.
As I said before, nobody cares about your theories. There isn't anything demonstrated to make us care.
Kind of like when you make claims that relativity says things it doesn't?
You have yet to show where relativity says anything about a quasar's speed having an affect of Earth's observation of a car....
Persol said:
What you said was
Persol said:
No show just where you claim such data shows it is based on relative velocity between the particle and various observers and isn't actually a function of common physics and decreased energy transfer efficiency caused by the v = c limit of the propagating force.
Not commenting on typo's. I just couldn't decipher what you meant to say.
Well, hold your breath because that may just change soon.
It would be most unlikely that they would advocate their own short falls don't you think. It has to be pointed out by those of us that aren't blinded by the quagmire of circular logic created by nothing more than a mathmatical maze.
(1 - v<sup>2</sup>/c<sup>2</sup>)<sup>1/2</sup> indeed. HeHeHe. :bugeye:
LMAO... what you're going to use a tea kettle instead of a past bowl this time?
So I'll take that to mean you were talking out your ass and now accept that relativity doesn't say anything about a quasar's speed having an affect on Earth's observation of a car....
No, claiming that relativity says something and then being unable to support it is simply either ignorance or a lie. It's not thinking seriously, it is making things up.
If you could show how you derive that from relativity then you'd have a case... btu you can't. You have no basis within relativity for that claim, which makes it even funnier as you were attempting to point out an inconsistency in the theory.
- Status