McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

Additionally, Terrell rotation does not replace "the old contraction view".

Please go back to school. It mat not replace it but that was it's proposed intent.

[RussDill]

Keep in mind the earth isn't the only gravitating body in the universe. So your 9.8m/s^2 is not at issue also if you believe in GR then you don't need an accelerator an object on the surface is accelerating due to EEP.

What is EEP? And yes, the earth is not the only gravitational body in the universe. But its the most massive gravitation body that we can currently perform experiments on. Are you actually claiming that you have some high ground because no one has experimented with charged particles on the "surface" of a black hole?

Good of you to admit you don't know something

BTW, if you please, as I've mentioned before. It is very difficult to tell the difference on the Internet between good natured banter and put-downs, negative quips, and/or insults. Please refrain unless you are willing to make the nature of your comments more clear.

Have you found ANY evidence of Bremsstranhlung on any gravitating surface in the universe?

That isn't how physics works. Have you found any evidence of anyone with 49 letters in their name (including 12 z's) dying from asphyxia? HA! you don't? then anyone with 49 letters in their name (including 12 z's) cannot suffocate.

Unless you have a specific experiment that you can suggest with specific expected results, you are just shouting gibberish.

Have you bothered to define the list of terms yet? no.
Have you carried out the experiment with a light source and two pieces of paper yet? no.

[MacM]

After a little research (thank you Google), I think that the consensus is that stationary charged particles in a gravitational field do emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. For example see this thread on Physics Forums - Radiation's equivalence principle (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-8259.html%253Cbr%2520/t-109841.html). The power of the radiation is tiny and the wavelength is of the order of light years. Thus detecting it on Earth would be like detecting the Hawking radiation from a stellar back hole - not possible.

Oh, I see it must be the concensus since otherwise GR would be falsified but you have absolutely NO evidence to support the consensus. TYPICAL.

[RussDill]

Please go back to school.

Again with the insulting insinuations.

It mat not replace it but that was it's proposed intent.

Can you provide any evidence to show that the proposed intention of Terrell rotation was to replace the effect of Lorentz contraction in SR? Terrell rotation describes an optical effect that results from lorentz contraction and transit time of photons.

[MacM]

What is EEP?

Google it.

BTW, if you please, as I've mentioned before. It is very difficult to tell the difference on the Internet between good natured banter and put-downs, negative quips, and/or insults. Please refrain unless you are willing to make the nature of your comments more clear.

Ditto.

Unless you have a specific experiment that you can suggest with specific expected results, you are just shouting gibberish.

Unless you have specific evidence to support your claims you are merely spouting rhetoric and dogma.

[MacM]

Again with the insulting insinuations.



Can you provide any evidence to show that the proposed intention of Terrell rotation was to replace the effect of Lorentz contraction in SR? Terrell rotation describes an optical effect that results from lorentz contraction and transit time of photons.

********************WiKi Extract ***********************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation

For images of passing objects, the apparent contraction of distances between points on the object's transverse surface could then be interpreted as being due to an apparent change in viewing angle, and the image of the object could be interpreted as appearing instead to be rotated.

A previously-popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid), was wrong.

************************************************** *****

[RussDill]

Not show SR and GR ARE flawed but are LIKELY flawed and how and why.

Ok, SR and GR pro-port to predict physical phenomenon. I will expect to see how experimental data does not match predictions.

1 - Anything physical must be physical in every frame.

Ok. I don't see how this relates to SR or GR. Also, this doesn't mention experimental data or internal contractions of either theory, but I'm following along.

2 - Under #1 above that means any clock with a dilated tick rate due to having gone under an acceleration (frame switching)

Acceleration and frame switching are not the same thing.

IS ticking slower than a resting clock.

This isn't what SR (or GR) says. Its like saying that F=ma indicates that things accelerate. Sure under the F=ma equivalence, things accelerate, but the context under which they accelerate is the entire basis of the relation.

3 - That physical condition must be retained when switching frame views.

Again, that isn't quite what SR says. It just indicates a set of coordinate system translations to be performed when switching inertial reference frames when dealing with coordinates in euclidean space with a separate time dimension. SR with Mankowski space doesn't need them.

That is velocity is a computed value of the ratio of change in physical distance per change in measured time or v - ds/dt.

No, that isn't how velocity is computed. That is how average velocity is computed. Additionally, you are using a term I'm not familiar with "physical distance". How does "physical distance" differ from "distance".

4 - Given t1 = 1, t2 = 0.5t1 and ds=1 then:

v1 = ds/t1 = 1 / 1 = 1

v2 = ds / t2 = 1 / 0.5 = 2

You haven't given any context. Are you making a calculation from some inertial frame of reference while something passes by at some velocity (crossing distance 1 in 1 time period)? So v1 indicates the velocity of that body in the first inertial frame of reference. Are you trying to compute in the second equation the velocity that the probe measures itself crossing the markers that are 1 distance unit apart in the first inertial reference frame? If so, your math is wrong. You translated the time coordinate, but not the space coordinate. Its a rotation, you are trading time "distances" for space "distances". Here, let me fix it for you

v2 = ds2 / t2 = 0.5 / 0.5 = 1

5 - When comparative tick rates are properly retained can trip time be correct is if ds remains unchanged and observer 2 computes a different relative velocity.

Why? Additionally, this idea of different observers calculating different relative velocities gives rise to the necessity of a preferred inertial reference frame. One in which any other reference frame moving relative to that preferred reference frame will calculate a higher velocity than the vice versa. This would be extremely easy to prove experimentally as the laws of physics would seem to differ when moving at different velocities relative to the preferred reference frame. Can you provide us with such as experiment that will turn physics on its head? Oh, wait, I forgot, you are attempting to show how SR or GR are internally inconsistent or disagree with some current experimental data. How are you showing this again?

[RussDill]

Google it.

It was assumed in the discussion that you were referring to the equivalence of gravity and acceleration under GR. If you are using uncommon abbreviations, you need to first use the full phrase. Go google EEP yourself, Einstein doesn't appear within the first 60 hits. Where it first appears is left as an exercise to the reader.

Unless you have specific evidence to support your claims you are merely spouting rhetoric and dogma.

My claims that SR and GR are backed by all known experimental data? Here's a good start with SR, since that is what you seem to be concentrating on:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

There is also plenty of experimental evidence for GR if you want to get into that.

So you are coming to me and saying that SR and GR are wrong. Rather than presenting me with experimental data contradicting it, you demand that I provide you with experimental data for which you have (a) designed no experiment and (b) is likely impractical to carry out.

There are far easier ways of showing the Einstein Equivalence principle. You might look at experiments listed on the wikipedia page.

[Uncayimmy]

Unconventional ideas require unconventional terms.
Then make up new terms and define them. Quit using terms that are already defined. Suppose I said to you, "The toaster eats bacon and sneezes." Does that make any sense? Of course not.

Now suppose I say, "The wuzzit gooms trimec and wiffles." That doesn't make sense either. Until I do this:

wuzzit - heating device using coils heated by electricity
goom - to convert organic tissue into electricity
trimec - a mixture of pork bellies and mucus
wiffle - to radiate heat

Now it makes sense, doesn't it?

This is not about me it is about getting people to stop looking inward and to look around and think.
Got it. Everyone else is wrong and you are right.

[RussDill]

********************WiKi Extract ***********************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation

For images of passing objects, the apparent contraction of distances between points on the object's transverse surface could then be interpreted as being due to an apparent change in viewing angle, and the image of the object could be interpreted as appearing instead to be rotated.

Note that it says "images of passing objects".

A previously-popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid) was wrong.

Or more accurately:

Terrell's paper pointed out that some existing discussions of special relativity were flawed and "explained" effects that the theory did not actually predict - while his paper did not change the actual mathematical structure of special relativity in any way, it did correct a popular misconception regarding the theory's predictions.

And so that invalidates SR how? People who read about the lorentz contraction assumed without thinking about the problem of how images would actually appear made incorrect assumptions. As soon as someone actually sat down and did the math, the incorrect assumptions were dispelled.

[Uncayimmy]

And so that invalidates SR how? People who read about the lorentz contraction assumed without thinking about the problem of how images would actually appear made incorrect assumptions. As soon as someone actually sat down and did the math, the incorrect assumptions were dispelled.
But only after 40 years of trying to convince people to look inward (or is it outward?) by misusing accepted terminology and not actually doing any math.

[RussDill]

Then make up new terms and define them. Quit using terms that are already defined. Suppose I said to you, "The toaster eats bacon and sneezes." Does that make any sense? Of course not.

Now suppose I say, "The wuzzit gooms trimec and wiffles." That doesn't make sense either. Until I do this:

wuzzit - heating device using coils heated by electricity
goom - to convert organic tissue into electricity
trimec - a mixture of pork bellies and mucus
wiffle - to radiate heat


I'm sorry, I can only give you a half point for that. The answer is that a monsoon is a wind, and a mongoose isn't. (apologies to all those who aren't in on this particular joke...probably everyone but me, sigh)

[Reality Check]

Oh, I see it must be the concensus since otherwise GR would be falsified but you have absolutely NO evidence to support the consensus. TYPICAL.
My guess is that you did not even read the link or do any research of your own. TYPICAL MacM behavior.

There is the fact that the power of the radiation is tiny and the wavelength is of the order of light years and so it cannot be detected by any apparatus that we have. So how do you suggest we measure Bremsstrahlung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung) of charged particles in Earth's gravitational field?
I have not done the calculations myself so the power and wavelength may be wrong.
Perhaps you have absolutely SOME evidence to not support the consensus?

The consensus is the usual scientific process - a theory is falsified when there is evidence that falsifies it. There is no evidence of that the Bremsstrahlung from a charged particle can be used to determine whether the observer is being uniformly accelerated or is in a gravitational field.

There are published papers that suggest that purely local experiments can distinguish a stationary charged particle in a static gravitational field from an accelerated particle in (gravity-free) Minkowski space , e.g. Radiation from a Uniformly Accelerated Charge and the Equivalence Principle (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303025) (originally submitted in 1993, last revised in 2001 but probably still relevant). But there are also papers suggesting the the reverse.

RussDill
EEP = Einstein equivalence principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#The_Einstein_equivalence_pri nciple)

The weak equivalance principle holds (All test particles at the alike spacetime point in a given gravitational field will undergo the same acceleration, independent of their properties, including their rest mass) and
The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a laboratory moving in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the velocity of the laboratory, or its location in spacetime.

[Ziggurat]

I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.:confused:

Not at all. In fact, we've had exchanges about that very issue: you have these ideas which you claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4795173#post4795173) will produce certain mathematical results, but you can't actually show any of the math involved.

Or how about this gem, also from this thread:
One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

If your ideas have not been "formalized mathematically", how the hell did you do this calculation, MacM? Since you've already done it, why can't you show us?

You have failed, time and time again, to quantify any of your ideas. You simply wave your hands around, claim certain results, but fail to ever show how any of them derive from your ideas. Physics is a quantitative science, MacM. It's well past time you start quantifying your ideas.

So let's go back to the post that started much of our current exchange:

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

What happens if you do this, MacM? Well, let's see, shall we? I don't care so much about the numerical value at the moment, but let's suppose the volume of a nucleon is X m3. OK, so what do we get if we multiply it by c2? We get X*300000000 m5/s2. Units matter, and regardless of what number you get in front of those units, THAT'S NOT A VOLUME! This was a calculation YOU suggested doing, which I asked you to do, and which you refused to do. I told you what the error would be, and you ignored me. Now that I've demonstrated that the units don't work, I wonder what your response will be?

[Ziggurat]

A previously-popular description of special relativity's predictions, in which an observer sees a passing object to be contracted (for instance, from a sphere to a flattened ellipsoid), was wrong.

You're not a very good reader, are you? Let me quote from that Wiki:
"while his paper did not change the actual mathematical structure of special relativity in any way, it did correct a popular misconception regarding the theory's predictions."
In other words, some people were misinterpreting relativity, and the paper on the Terrell effect helped correct some of that misinterpretation. Where did that misinterpretation come from? Why, from the very thing I already told you about (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4817418#post4817418) in this thread: the distinction between what one sees and what one observes. Everyone with a clue already knew that Lorentz contraction applies to what one observes. It's only the clueless who didn't understand the distinction.

[MacM]

Ok, SR and GR pro-port to predict physical phenomenon. I will expect to see how experimental data does not match predictions.



Ok. I don't see how this relates to SR or GR. Also, this doesn't mention experimental data or internal contractions of either theory, but I'm following along.



Acceleration and frame switching are not the same thing.



This isn't what SR (or GR) says. Its like saying that F=ma indicates that things accelerate. Sure under the F=ma equivalence, things accelerate, but the context under which they accelerate is the entire basis of the relation.



Again, that isn't quite what SR says. It just indicates a set of coordinate system translations to be performed when switching inertial reference frames when dealing with coordinates in euclidean space with a separate time dimension. SR with Mankowski space doesn't need them.



No, that isn't how velocity is computed. That is how average velocity is computed. Additionally, you are using a term I'm not familiar with "physical distance". How does "physical distance" differ from "distance".



You haven't given any context. Are you making a calculation from some inertial frame of reference while something passes by at some velocity (crossing distance 1 in 1 time period)? So v1 indicates the velocity of that body in the first inertial frame of reference. Are you trying to compute in the second equation the velocity that the probe measures itself crossing the markers that are 1 distance unit apart in the first inertial reference frame? If so, your math is wrong. You translated the time coordinate, but not the space coordinate. Its a rotation, you are trading time "distances" for space "distances". Here, let me fix it for you

v2 = ds2 / t2 = 0.5 / 0.5 = 1



Why? Additionally, this idea of different observers calculating different relative velocities gives rise to the necessity of a preferred inertial reference frame. One in which any other reference frame moving relative to that preferred reference frame will calculate a higher velocity than the vice versa. This would be extremely easy to prove experimentally as the laws of physics would seem to differ when moving at different velocities relative to the preferred reference frame. Can you provide us with such as experiment that will turn physics on its head? Oh, wait, I forgot, you are attempting to show how SR or GR are internally inconsistent or disagree with some current experimental data. How are you showing this again?

Just more rehtorical babble. You cannot switch frames without accelerating. Get over it. The Frame Switching lable is just a word game to not acknowledge an absolute change in velocity as a basis of generating relative velocity. Relative velocity is always to the inertail rest frame and not to any other objects in the universe.

That is a universal ABSOLUTE energy system not relative velocity between clocks system.

[MacM]

My guess is that you did not even read the link or do any research of your own. TYPICAL MacM behavior.

There is the fact that the power of the radiation is tiny and the wavelength is of the order of light years and so it cannot be detected by any apparatus that we have. So how do you suggest we measure Bremsstrahlung (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung) of charged particles in Earth's gravitational field?
I have not done the calculations myself so the power and wavelength may be wrong.
Perhaps you have absolutely SOME evidence to not support the consensus?

The consensus is the usual scientific process - a theory is falsified when there is evidence that falsifies it. There is no evidence of that the Bremsstrahlung from a charged particle can be used to determine whether the observer is being uniformly accelerated or is in a gravitational field.

There are published papers that suggest that purely local experiments can distinguish a stationary charged particle in a static gravitational field from an accelerated particle in (gravity-free) Minkowski space , e.g. Radiation from a Uniformly Accelerated Charge and the Equivalence Principle (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9303025) (originally submitted in 1993, last revised in 2001 but probably still relevant). But there are also papers suggesting the the reverse.

RussDill
EEP = Einstein equivalence principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#The_Einstein_equivalence_pri nciple)

The weak equivalance principle holds (All test particles at the alike spacetime point in a given gravitational field will undergo the same acceleration, independent of their properties, including their rest mass) and
The outcome of any local non-gravitational experiment in a laboratory moving in an inertial frame of reference is independent of the velocity of the laboratory, or its location in spacetime.


My only point was that your rush to state "The consensus is that particles do radiate in a gravity field" was based on nothing but the assumption that GR is valid and is not supported by any evidence.

There is no evidence for an abaolute frame but you quickly conclude it doesn't exist beause Einstien saids so? But when there is no eveidence for supporting a predction of relativity you quickly conclude it must be so.

TYPICAL.

[MacM]

Not at all. In fact, we've had exchanges about that very issue: you have these ideas which you claim (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4795173#post4795173) will produce certain mathematical results, but you can't actually show any of the math involved.

Again you seemd to miss the generalization. I made no statement about "Certain" mathematical results butv suggested formalized matematics should/could produce such results. Stop trying to make more of thingsvthan were presented in the first place.

Or how about this gem, also from this thread:


If your ideas have not been "formalized mathematically", how the hell did you do this calculation, MacM? Since you've already done it, why can't you show us?

You have failed, time and time again, to quantify any of your ideas. You simply wave your hands around, claim certain results, but fail to ever show how any of them derive from your ideas. Physics is a quantitative science, MacM. It's well past time you start quantifying your ideas.

So let's go back to the post that started much of our current exchange:



What happens if you do this, MacM? Well, let's see, shall we? I don't care so much about the numerical value at the moment, but let's suppose the volume of a nucleon is X m3. OK, so what do we get if we multiply it by c2? We get X*300000000 m5/s2. Units matter, and regardless of what number you get in front of those units, THAT'S NOT A VOLUME! This was a calculation YOU suggested doing, which I asked you to do, and which you refused to do. I told you what the error would be, and you ignored me. Now that I've demonstrated that the units don't work, I wonder what your response will be?


You poor pathetic grumbler. Move on. The volume issue was explained pages ago. No units remember just a comparison of Energy vs Mass. If you can't make such simple analogies you are beyond help.

[Ziggurat]

Just more rehtorical babble. You cannot switch frames without accelerating.

Sure you can. We can choose whichever reference frame we want. We need not be in that frame ourselves.

Relative velocity is always to the inertail rest frame and not to any other objects in the universe.

The inertial reference frame? No, MacM. To an inertial reference frame. Which one you choose is arbitrary, and there are an infinite number of them. This is no different in Newtonian mechanics than in special relativity.

That is a universal ABSOLUTE energy system not relative velocity between clocks system.

Nope. Kinetic energy is not absolute. Not in Newtonian mechanics, and not in special relativity. Changes in kinetic energy are, but total mechanical energy is not. If you've got a problem with special relativity in this regard, you have a problem with Newtonian mechanics. Why do you have a problem with Newtonian mechanics, MacM?

[MacM]

You're not a very good reader, are you? Let me quote from that Wiki:
"while his paper did not change the actual mathematical structure of special relativity in any way, it did correct a popular misconception regarding the theory's predictions."
In other words, some people were misinterpreting relativity, and the paper on the Terrell effect helped correct some of that misinterpretation. Where did that misinterpretation come from? Why, from the very thing I already told you about (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4817418#post4817418) in this thread: the distinction between what one sees and what one observes. Everyone with a clue already knew that Lorentz contraction applies to what one observes. It's only the clueless who didn't understand the distinction.


The only people clueless are those that repeatedly interject what observers "See", "percieve", "Observe" vs what is physically real. I have not once objected to SR asserting anythingabout what observers "See", etc.

If you are prepared to now admit "Again" in direct words of what you (and Wiki) just said above about Lorentz contraction is just what one observes" and is not a physical reality then we can move on.

[Ziggurat]

Again you seemd to miss the generalization.

There is no generalization. A conversion which involves a change of units is fundamentally different than a unitless multiplication.

I made no statement about "Certain" mathematical results butv suggested formalized matematics should/could produce such results.

Then show us. Why should we believe you about what the results would be for calculations you refuse to do?

The volume issue was explained pages ago.

Indeed it was: it was pointed out pages ago that it doesn't make any sense because the units don't work.

No units remember just a comparison of Energy vs Mass.

You cannot drop units! The comparison of energy and mass requires units. It makes no sense without the units. You cannot assign a numerical value to any of the quantities involved if you don't use units, and if the units don't match, the numbers won't either.

If you can't make such simple analogies you are beyond help.

If you cannot figure out that units matter, you are beyond help.

[Ziggurat]

If you are prepared to now admit "Again" in direct words of what you (and Wiki) just said above about Lorentz contraction is just what one observes" and is not a physical reality then we can move on.

You really don't get it. What one observes is reality, which is why we use a different word than "see". Pick up any textbook on relativity and they'll tell you this. Lorentz contraction is not an optical effect. It is physical reality.

[MacM]

Sure you can. We can choose whichever reference frame we want. We need not be in that frame ourselves.

None of which exits unless they have been accelerated relative to each other. Shssh! Give it up you are trying to form a circle jerk here.

The inertial reference frame? No, MacM. To an inertial reference frame. Which one you choose is arbitrary, and there are an infinite number of them. This is no different in Newtonian mechanics than in special relativity.

Baloney. "A" has a speed of 0.1c . "B" has a spped of 0.2c. You have no idea of any or no relative veloicty between "A" & "B" without knowing vector .

You cannot compute time dialtion between "A" & "B"Bwithout referringto their respective inertial rest frames.

Nope. Kinetic energy is not absolute. Not in Newtonian mechanics, and not in special relativity. Changes in kinetic energy are, but total mechanical energy is not. If you've got a problem with special relativity in this regard, you have a problem with Newtonian mechanics. Why do you have a problem with Newtonian mechanics, MacM?\

I don't have a problem you do.

[realpaladin]

I have no clue on what you are on about... but I am sure I have seen this "rest-frame" discussion before in this thread.

Of course, reading threads with stubborn people may lead to forum-pareidolia...

[MacM]

You really don't get it. What one observes is reality, which is why we use a different word than "see". Pick up any textbook on relativity and they'll tell you this. Lorentz contraction is not an optical effect. It is physical reality.


Pure BS. You have NO physical evidence to support this ridiculus assertion. Your claim it is physically real generates the following.

1 - An observer accelerating away from earth at relavisitc speeds gets closer to earth the faster he receeds away.!!!!!

2 - Remote objects in the universe indeed the visable edge of the universe contracts at trillions times c even at subluminal velocites.

3 - The accelerating expansion of the universe must actually be deceleration since Lorentz contraction has to be considered. (And before you pop off about objects moving through space is different that space moving - forget it I know that two step argument).

[Ziggurat]

None of which exits unless they have been accelerated relative to each other.

Nonsense. Reference frames are not objects. That's like saying 5 doesn't exist until you count to it.

Baloney. "A" has a speed of 0.1c . "B" has a spped of 0.2c. You have no idea of any or no relative veloicty between "A" & "B" without knowing vector.

Well, duh. I've got no idea of the velocity of A relative to anything, including the reference frame implicit in your first sentence, because you never specified it. I can't tell the color of "A" either. And I don't know how much "B" weighs. Oh, and did I mention that I can't figure out the length of "A" or "B"?

[Terry]

You poor pathetic grumbler. Move on. The volume issue was explained pages ago. No units remember just a comparison of Energy vs Mass. If you can't make such simple analogies you are beyond help.

If you can't see that consistent units are a requirement for a physical theory, you are beyond help.

[Ziggurat]

Pure BS. You have NO physical evidence to support this ridiculus assertion. Your claim it is physically real generates the following.

1 - An observer accelerating away from earth at relavisitc speeds gets closer to earth the faster he receeds away.!!!!!

Only if earth is on the other side of the event horizon created by acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Event_horizon_of_an_accelerated_part icle), which makes this conclusion both unmeasurable and irrelevant for that observer.

2 - Remote objects in the universe indeed the visable edge of the universe contracts at trillions times c even at subluminal velocites.

Again, it's on the other side of the event horizon, so it's meaningless.

3 - The accelerating expansion of the universe must actually be deceleration since Lorentz contraction has to be considered.

And this statement is just plain wrong.

[MacM]

I have no clue on what you are on about... but I am sure I have seen this "rest-frame" discussion before in this thread.

Of course, reading threads with stubborn people may lead to forum-pareidolia...

Put very simply he claims you can pick any frame of reference and do a comparison.

But if you have three clocks "A", "B" & "C" all at common rest and then accelerate "A" & "B" away from "C" in opposite direction under equal conditions. i.e. - .2c each then relative to "C" "A" & "B" both have a dilated tick rate of 0.97979 compared to "C". However "A" & "B" remain in synch even though they have a relative velocity between themselves.

Now if you launch "A" & "B" in a co-moving vector under the same accelerations the results are identical even though there is no relative velocity between "A" & "B".

It becomes obvious that all dilation is a function of relative velocity to an inertial rest frame and not just to anyother frame. You can compute from frame to frame but you MUST pass through respective rest frames to get there.

Don't let them BS you on this because it is important to understand what you are dealing with is actually an absolute motion system not merely the relative velocity between frames.

[MacM]

If you can't see that consistent units are a requirement for a physical theory, you are beyond help.

Stuff it. Of course units are important but ony when they are required. They were not required.

[MacM]

Only if earth is on the other side of the event horizon created by acceleration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Event_horizon_of_an_accelerated_part icle), which makes this conclusion both unmeasurable and irrelevant for that observer.



Again, it's on the other side of the event horizon, so it's meaningless.



And this statement is just plain wrong.

This is great. I hve been though this "Event Horizon" mathematical arguement and it is crap.

1 - It is based on the assumptions being challenged in the first place.

2 - It merely side steps the issue by claiming the FTL consequences aren't "Seen" not that they don't exist. According to your pet theory FTL is prohibited but tuck in you face as a consequence of your own theory you want to claim "That is OK we don't see it". LOL:jaw-dropp

[Ziggurat]

This is great. I hve been though this "Event Horizon" mathematical arguement and it is crap.

1 - It is based on the assumptions being challenged in the first place.

So is your objection. You don't like one of the consequences of relativity, but you can't ignore other consequences: it's a package deal, and if that second consequence solves the problem of the first consequence, then you're left without an objection. Yes, this is not proof that the model is correct, but it does demonstrate that the results you object to are not, in fact, a problem at all.

2 - It merely side steps the issue by claiming the FTL consequences aren't "Seen" not that they don't exist. According to your pet theory FTL is prohibited

No. FTL is only prohibited in inertial frames. There are restrictions even in non-inertial frames, but they are more complicated and different from the restrictions in inertial frames. You still don't get the difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames. You don't even get that distinction in Newtonian physics.

[Ziggurat]

Stuff it. Of course units are important but ony when they are required. They were not required.

They are always required when dealing with physical quantities.

[RussDill]

Just more rehtorical babble. You cannot switch frames without accelerating.

An inertial frame of reference is just a viewpoint. Just like looking at a house from the east vs from the north.

Get over it. The Frame Switching lable is just a word game to not acknowledge an absolute change in velocity as a basis of generating relative velocity.

I'm sorry, if I'm imagining what the house will look like from the east, to then switch to imagining what it would look like from the north, I actually have to move? Similarly, to imagine what it would be like to watch a horse race, and then switch to imagining what it would be like to be on the horse, I have to physically accelerate?

Relative velocity is always to the inertail rest frame and not to any other objects in the universe.

The inertial reference frame chosen to do calculations doesn't even need to coincide with any objects in the universe, you can pick any one. Second, if there is some master inertial reference frame we must use to calculate things, can you give us this frame. What is the Earth's velocity relative to it?

That is a universal ABSOLUTE energy system not relative velocity between clocks system.

You are using terms that I've asked you to define but you have refused to define. You must understand that since I have previously asked you to define these terms, I won't understand what you are saying until you define them. Its like you don't care if you are actually communicating any usable information.

energy system
absolute energy system
universal energy system
universal absolute energy system

[RussDill]

My only point was that your rush to state "The consensus is that particles do radiate in a gravity field" was based on nothing but the assumption that GR is valid and is not supported by any evidence.

You said that experimental evidence violates the predictions of GR because we do not see braking radiation emanating from charged objects on the Earth's surface. You need two things for that. One, you need to show the amount of braking radiation predicted by GR by a 9.8m/s^2 acceleration. Two, you need to provide experimental data showing that that amount of radiation is not being produced.

You haven't come out with either. However, Reality Check was nice enough to cite papers where they have worked out the math. The papers show that GR predicts the amount of braking radiation would be undetectable. Since none has been detected, experimental data matches theory.

Now you are switching gears somehow and saying that its incorrect for GR to make predictions because the predictions are predicated on GR being valid? What else is a theory good for?

There is no evidence for an abaolute frame but you quickly conclude it doesn't exist beause Einstien saids so?

Because every experiment done to date has not been able to find any difference in the laws of physics between inertial reference frames. No other physical theory to date has been as successful at explaining this data and simply formed as SR.

If there is an absolute frame of reference and motion relative to that absolute frame of reference causes effects, then those effects should be measurable. In fact, with the claims you have been making, it'd be very easily measurable. Please provide an experiment that determines motion relative to an absolute reference frame.

But when there is no eveidence for supporting a predction of relativity you quickly conclude it must be so.

Again, you claimed that a lack of observation of an event violated GR. Reality Check pointed out that GR predicts exactly what is being observed. What is the problem?

[RussDill]

I don't have a problem you do.

I would be most interested in an explanation of what problems you think Ziggurat has with Newtonian mechanics.

[RussDill]

Put very simply he claims you can pick any frame of reference and do a comparison.

But if you have three clocks "A", "B" & "C" all at common rest and then accelerate "A" & "B" away from "C" in opposite direction under equal conditions. i.e. - .2c each then relative to "C" "A" & "B" both have a dilated tick rate of 0.97979 compared to "C". However "A" & "B" remain in synch even though they have a relative velocity between themselves.

SR doesn't predict this. The rest frames of "A", "B", and "C" are all different. If we pick an inertial reference frame where "A" is at rest, then "B" is moving away at .2c, and "C" is moving away at 0.29c.

In the inertial rest frame where "A" is at rest, B's can be observed to tick slower that A's, and C's clock can be observed to tick slower that B's.

Now if you launch "A" & "B" in a co-moving vector under the same accelerations the results are identical even though there is no relative velocity between "A" & "B".

Again, they aren't identical as I've shown above.

It becomes obvious that all dilation is a function of relative velocity to an inertial rest frame and not just to anyother frame.

Only if you incorrectly apply SR. If what you say is true about relativistically moving objects, then it would be easy to design an experiment to show that and stand physics on its head.

You can compute from frame to frame but you MUST pass through respective rest frames to get there.

Why? and can you please define "respective rest frame"?

[RussDill]

Stuff it. Of course units are important but ony when they are required. They were not required.

Can you please provide us with a set of rules to follow when dropping units so that we can do it consistently and understand how you have come to the conclusion that they can be dropped in this case? If you don't have a set of rules, than it is completely arbitrary.

[MacM]

SR doesn't predict this. The rest frames of "A", "B", and "C" are all different. If we pick an inertial reference frame where "A" is at rest, then "B" is moving away at .2c, and "C" is moving away at 0.29c.

In the inertial rest frame where "A" is at rest, B's can be observed to tick slower that A's, and C's clock can be observed to tick slower that B's.

How soon we forget or should I just be honest and point out you continue to IGNORE the fact that I don't care what you "Observe" while in motion. I only care about what turns up as permanent dialtion once clocks are compared in a common rest frame after having had relative velocity.

[RussDill]

How soon we forget or should I just be honest and point out you continue to IGNORE the fact that I don't care what you "Observe" while in motion. I only care about what turns up as permanent dialtion once clocks are compared in a common rest frame after having had relative velocity.

You don't need to return the clocks all back to the same location. They can send signals to each other. Also, you seem to think that being "in motion" is somehow special. Can you please tell me how I can tell if I am in motion?

[MacM]

You don't need to return the clocks all back to the same location. They can send signals to each other. Also, you seem to think that being "in motion" is somehow special. Can you please tell me how I can tell if I am in motion?
Of course everybody knows that but it is far more clear and less arguable to simply return them for direct comparison. But then that would leaqve you without some negative comment in every post wouldn't it.

[Reality Check]

Of course everybody knows that but it is far more clear and less arguable to simply return them for direct comparison. But then that would leaqve you without some negative comment in every post wouldn't it.
Are you saying that a genius like you cannot answer his question :rolleyes: ?
(yet another negative comment!)

[RussDill]

Of course everybody knows that but it is far more clear and less arguable to simply return them for direct comparison. But then that would leaqve you without some negative comment in every post wouldn't it.

You want to only consider problems in relativity where all objects start at rest with each, and all objects end at rest with each other in the same inertial reference frame that they started in. You can then claim that that frame of reference is somehow special.

Any other experiment clearly shows that there can be no special inertial frame, that is why you would like to avoid it. You keep demanding that all measurements be done from some special inertial frame, but have provided no method for determining motion relative to that frame.

[MacM]

Are you saying that a genius like you cannot answer his question :rolleyes: ?
(yet another negative comment!)


I saw no question just a comment which as pointed out is well know by all without his spouting off the obvious.

[MacM]

You want to only consider problems in relativity where all objects start at rest with each, and all objects end at rest with each other in the same inertial reference frame that they started in. You can then claim that that frame of reference is somehow special.

Any other experiment clearly shows that there can be no special inertial frame, that is why you would like to avoid it. You keep demanding that all measurements be done from some special inertial frame, but have provided no method for determining motion relative to that frame.

Please post just one case where you have emperical data from two moving objects with unknown velocity histories where you have predicted and gathered supporting data as to the time dilated status of each. Of course you don't.

The only valid data is from known starting points or histories.

The bottom line after all the huff and puff of you guys is that there has not been one case of emperical data to support lorentz contraction.

LC is nothing but a mathematical artifact creted by switching time standards between frames.

1 - You assert a clock is dilated relative to another clock in another frame.

2 - You then go to the dilated frame and claim relative velocity is the same and since time recorded for a trip is less distance must have changed.

3 - Absolute nonsense at the most obvious and basic level. If the clock is dilated relative to the other then it is dilated in it's own frame relative to the other (one need not be able to sense or measure such dilation) just the fact is that it IS dilated and remains dilated means the trip time is properly accounted for only if distance does not change and the dilated observer "computes" a different velocity for the trip.

[realpaladin]

Round and round she goes, whether she'll stop, nobody knows...

[Uncayimmy]

What's really annoying is that I cannot conceive of anything we could all say that would shut him up. I can't even lie and says he's right because I have no idea what he's trying to say, much less convince him he's wrong.

[MacM]

What's really annoying is that I cannot conceive of anything we could all say that would shut him up. I can't even lie and says he's right because I have no idea what he's trying to say, much less convince him he's wrong.

Amazing. Truely amazing. One cannot concieve that something physical is actually physical (clock tick rate) and doesn't change just because you switch views.

[Uncayimmy]

Amazing. Truely amazing. One cannot concieve that something physical is actually physical (clock tick rate) and doesn't change just because you switch views.

Truth is, Mac, what you wrote sounds a lot like what someone might write to parody you, spelling mistakes and all. I'm sure in your mind that it has some great meaning for you. As for me, well, it makes very little sense.

I'm a layman of above average intelligence. I'm not stuck in any "dogma" at all. I've read every post by you. Not only haven't you convinced me of anything, I still don't know what it is you're trying to convince me of.

Yeh, yeh. It's not your fault.

[RussDill]

Please post just one case where you have emperical data from two moving objects with unknown velocity histories where you have predicted and gathered supporting data as to the time dilated status of each. Of course you don't.

Are you saying that if one experimenter observes an object, but does not know where it comes from, that counts. But if another knows, that doesn't count? Your velocity history thing is so full of holes anyway. You demand that GPS calculations must be done from an earth centric reference frame. Why? Presumably because they were launched from earth, I'm not really sure, you haven't stated by what logic you choose reference frames. If the satellite was built on mars, instead of earth and then transported from mars to earth it would supposedly behave differently. Course, its actually the Cesium in the atomic clock of the satellite that we are measuring. Where does the Cesium come from? Its naturally occurring. So it was produced in the core of a star. So, from your logic, we would need to know the velocity vector of the star where the cesium was produced. But the velocity vector of the star changes over time, and the cesium we utilize probably comes from many, many different stars, so each atom of cesium should behave differently since it has a different velocity history. Do we also need the velocity history of the lighter elements that fused to produce the cesium?

You are demanding empirical evidence from everyone else for a set of theories that have boatloads of empirical evidence. Clearly, you think that there is some experiment that can be carried out for which the results will not match current theory. You have been unable to not only provide an example of such an experiment, but also unable to predict what the outcome will be.

The only valid data is from known starting points or histories.

I'm really confounded by this statement, what are you trying to say.

The bottom line after all the huff and puff of you guys is that there has not been one case of emperical data to support lorentz contraction.

Lorentz contraction is required to make SR consistent, without it, there is no SR. Its also necessary for our current laws of electricity and magnetism. Both theories are highly successful. Lorentz contraction calculations are used for things as mundane as the design of a cathode ray tube and as complex as a particle accelerator. The use of Lorentz contraction to date has been to make calculations based from the inertial reference frame of a particle. We just don't yet have the power to macroscopic objects to relativistic speeds.

The crux is that length contraction and time dilation are both required for a consistent theory that includes matches all our current observations regarding both the speed of light and its invariance, and the effects of relative velocity of near light speed.

Do you seriously have a problem with a theory because it predicts something we cannot yet measure? That just seems silly, as any alternate theory that specifically does not include lorentz contraction would be equally unmeasurable in that respect and would thus be on equal footing.

LC is nothing but a mathematical artifact creted by switching time standards between frames.

There is no such thing as a "time standard".

1 - You assert a clock is dilated relative to another clock in another frame.

There are actually only two postulates of SR:

# The Principle of Relativity – The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.
# The Principle of Invariant Light Speed – Light in vacuum propagates with the speed c (a fixed constant) in terms of any system of inertial coordinates, regardless of the state of motion of the light source

Everything else is derived from these two simple principles. Its quite elegant actually. All of your disagreement seems to flow from the first postulate, although, since experiments dealing with the invariance of the speed of light throw a bit of a wrench in your disagreement, you also must disagree with the second postulate. I've already explained how a simple experiment disproves your theory of different observers seeing different photons. You try that experiment yourself yet?

Ok, so back to your time dilation. Time dilation is not an assertion of special relativity, but a consequence of the postulates. Your description is also not quite accurate, the clocks traveling at relative velocities are more accurately measuring time differently. Each will view the other as ticking more slowly.

2 - You then go to the dilated frame and claim relative velocity is the same and since time recorded for a trip is less distance must have changed.

There is no such thing as the "dilated frame". Also, you do not "go" to a frame. You describe the situation or perform calculations from a particular inertial frame of reference. You are also claiming here that lorentz contraction is a consequence of time dilation. Not true, its a direct consequence of the first two postulates of SR. This can easily be shown with a thought experiment involving two mirrors and a photon bouncing between them.

3 - Absolute nonsense at the most obvious and basic level. If the clock is dilated relative to the other then it is dilated in it's own frame relative to the other (one need not be able to sense or measure such dilation) just the fact is that it IS dilated and remains dilated means the trip time is properly accounted for only if distance does not change and the dilated observer "computes" a different velocity for the trip.

Your claims stem from a rejection of both postulates of SR. You somehow concentrate on the things that flow from the postulates rather than the postulates themselves. You claim above in (3) that if A is moving relative to B, that A will observe B's clock ticking slower, and B will observe A's clock ticking slower. From this, it must follow that A can observe clocks moving at many velocity vectors relative to itself. Finding any clock that ticks faster indicates that A is not in a preferred inertial frame of reference. We can then find the clock that ticks faster than all other clocks. This clock is in the preferred inertial reference frame. All motion must be measured relative to this master inertial reference frame.

Earth orbits the sun and also rotates about its axis. Any experimenter on the earth is therefore highly unlikely to find him or herself traveling with no motion relative to the master inertial reference frame. If the experimenter is moving with some velocity V relative to the master inertial reference frame, then by sending out a particles in several different directions, some would travel with a velocity relative to the master inertial reference frame different than that of the experimenter. Therefore, even though the particles would be observed by the experimenter as traveling at the same speed relative to himself, they would decay at different rates as they are all traveling at different speeds relative to the master inertial reference frame.

As experimenters regularly produce particles with limited lifetimes and measure those lifetimes by distance and time traveled before decay. If there were differences in lifetime based on direction traveled, it'd be very easily detectable. No such detection has ever been made. Jets have also been flown in opposite directions around the world with atomic clocks and compared with an atomic clock on the ground. If their direction of travel effected their degree of time dilation, it would have been detected.

You have yet to provide us with any of the below:

* Experimental evidence that shows that the first postulate of SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that the second postulate of SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that time dilation as described by SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that length contraction as described by SR is incorrect
* Experimental evidence that shows that the mass-energy relation predicted by SR is incorrect
* A substitute theory who's predictions match current experimental data and either makes different predictions than SR, or is somehow simpler.

[Reality Check]

The bottom line after all the huff and puff of you guys is that there has not been one case of emperical data to support lorentz contraction.
Experimental basis of Special Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Length_Contraction)

At this time there are no direct tests of length contraction, as measuring the length of a moving object to the precision required has not been feasible.

There is, however, a demonstration that it occurs:
A current-carrying wire is observed to be electrically neutral in its rest frame, and a nearby charged particle at rest in that frame is unaffected by the current. A nearby charged particle that is moving parallel to the wire, however, is subject to a magnetic force that is related to its speed relative to the wire. If one considers the situation in the rest frame of a charge moving with the drift velocity of the electrons in the wire, the force is purely electrostatic due to the different length contractions of the positive and negative charges in the wire (the former are fixed relative to the wire, while the latter are mobile with drift velocities of a few mm per second). This approach gives the correct quantitative value of the magnetic force in the wire frame. This is discussed in more detail in: Purcel, Electricity and Magnetism. It is rather remarkable that relativistic effects for such a tiny velocity explain the enormous magnetic forces we observe.