McCoin Last Thread

[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 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 (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

1. 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
2. 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.

Not at all. In fact, we've had exchanges about that very issue: you have these ideas which you claim 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 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 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 (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

1. 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
2. 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 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 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, 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.