sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
You're much too polite - you make the rest of us (i.e., me) look bad.
Anyway, good luck.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Pragmatic Failure of Special Relativity
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
You're much too polite - you make the rest of us (i.e., me) look bad.
Anyway, good luck.
I think he's already offered one. From the OP:
Of course, the math appears to be gibberish (and to be based on a whole slew of oversimplifying assumptions; for example, he's ignoring the fact that both the satellite and the ground-based clock are under gravity, so SR is not appropriate) but I'll let sol clearcut that particular forest....
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
I confess that I didn't follow a lot of the logic, but are you saying that there really is an absolute reference frame, and it's centered on the Earth?
Well, no . .. as the other poster said, it's all about the vectors.
If GPS was in equatorial orbit, the relative velocity between a spot on the ground and a GPS satellite would be constantly changing - sometimes they'd be moving the same direction, sometimes opposite directions, usually something in between.
Of course, GPS isn't in an equatorial orbit. It's inclined 55 degrees, which makes the relative motion more complicated and dependent on the relationship between the specific ground location and the RAAN and Anomaly of the orbit.
"Relative speed," which is what you seem to be talking about, would be the magnitude of the relative velocity vector. It would be constantly varying.
ETA: Actually, for that last bit, it depends on what we mean by "relative speed." The magnitide of the relative velocity vector would be one meaning, but the rate that the two things are moving closer/farther is another perfectly good meaning. For the GPS sat/ground station, the magnitude of the relative velocity vector will always be a few km/s; the rate at which they're closing/separating will pass through zero from time to time. Just for completeness.
Last edited:
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Geocentrism returns.
I wish I were being sarcastic in the paragraph above.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
As I've already tried to point out to him twice already, he's actually saying that there's an abosolute reference frame relative to the center of the earth.
Tubbythin,
Well Kudos for at least making a series of responses compared to the curt attitudes by some others. Lets see just how germain they are.
Originally Posted by MacM
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.
Tubbythin "No. To quote wiki": 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.
Perhaps I miss your point but your quote seems to repeat what I have just said.
Quote MacM:
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light.
Tubbythin "No. We understand light very well."
You think you do. I think you are allowing yourself to be bamfuzzeled. It is easy to envision light being generated as an energy function (i.e. simular to Cerenkov Radiation) in a multi-energetic flowing spatial medium than be invariantly propogated in a static medium. Your inability (or unwillingness) to consider that possibility means you are being blind sided by your preconcieved ideas and understandings.
Quote MacM:
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".
Tubbythin "No. Counter-intuitive works reasonably well."
It actually doesn't work at all. It merely grants those citing it the latitude to ignore their shortcomings and continue to pretend that know more than everyonelse.
Quote MacM:
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.
Tubbythin "No. This quite clearly isn't an untenable conflict of the equivalence of inertial frames since one of the frames isn't inertial."
Again you cleverly miss the point. It was my very point that one is not inertial - HINT "Mere Relative Velocity" is no longer a cause of change, acceleration (non-inertial Frame Switching) is.
Quote MacM:
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion.
Tubbythin "No. F=/=ma in relativity."
You still attempt to avoid the issue. The issue is not how F=ma is dealt with in relativity but the fact that to switch frames one must accelerate (i.e - become non-inertial and break the mere relative velocity symmetry.
Quote MacM:
So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.
Tubbythin "No. There is only one inertial traveller, the one that stays at home. Whether or not he's at rest or not depends on who is viewing him."
Once again you attempt to confuse the issue. I most certainly know about inertial rest, etc. My point is that in many cases you do not have knowledge of who accelerated or who accelerated the most. Further what is at issue is who will appear dilated (i.e. - have the slower running clock) While you will choose to deny an absolute frame the simple fact is one can (and should) assume it and from it both clocks may well have absolute velocity and yet be inertial. In such case they will have what appears to them (in absence of the absolute reference) to be equal relative velocity in which case you could not mathematically conclude who's clock is running slower by relativity. But the FACT is one may be and it will be the one that has had the greatest acceleration x time history. Are you going to stick your foot in your mouth and deny that?
Quote MacM:
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.
Tubbythin "No. That does not follow."
Inadequate and incorrect response.
Quote MacM:
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.
Tubbythin "No, this just doesn't make sense. Inertial =/= at rest, in general."
This is hilarious. You attempt to deny real motion caused by an acceleration force breaking the inertial condition by refering to inertial = rest.???? What ever is your point?
Quote MacM:
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.
Tubbythin "Cosmic ray muons clearly falsify this. If its only an illusion, why do we observe that a cosmic ray muon travelling with high relative velocity has a longer lifetime than a stationary one? The illusion alters the laws of physics?"
Unfortunately your example says nothing about the issue. You do understand that cosmic muons have high velocity and assuming it is greater than ours and we are not running into them (since they come from all vectors) they would be expected to suffer time dilation.
Now lets see if you happen to know that a study was done where the speed of the earth toward other galaxies was computed correctly, according to other methods ( approx 300km/sec) by using cosmic muon ansitrophy to Earth! . The study conclusion was it is more accurate to compute using an absolute velocity of the muon than to use the muon relative velocity to the earth.!!! .
Quote MacM:
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality.
Tubbythin "Now you're contradicting yourself."
No contridiction what-so-ever. If you have any reading comprehension ability at all you would have seen that my discussion is with respect to the duality of physical affects caused by a common cause according to relativity. This statement merely states a fact. Time dilation has been repeatedly measured and hence can be considered a physical reality.
Quote MacM:
The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.
Tubbythin "Err, no. If time dilation is a reality then length contraction must also be a reality."
Your inability to read english is showing more clearly. This presentation points out rather elequently that if you first assume a physical reality with respect to one clock you cannot then ignore that fact when computing the view of another observer. Either the clock ticks slow physically or it is merely a perception. What follows makes the point quite clear. At least if you actually read and comprehend and don't just turn a deaf ear and recite what you have read elsewhere.
Quote MacM:
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.
Tubby "There is no "correct" time. That's kinda the point."
Not an answer but an attempt to avoid the issue. Lets talk physics not rhetoric. You cannot prove a theory by quoting the theory.
Quote MacM:
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. \
Tubbythin "No it does not. It applies two sets of time standards to two different clocks".
Incorrect. It applies two different time standards to both clocks as a function of who is considered at rest or in motion. In one view they claim the clock ticks slower than the resting observer's clock. Then in the other moving observers view they claim his second is comperable , that is 1 second is still 1 second and hence the fact that he accumulates less time for the trip is that distance foreshortened due to Lorentz Contraction of space. IF YOU MAINTIAN THE DILATED TICK RATE CLAIM BY THE RESTING OBSERVER THEN THE TRIP TIME IS ONLY VALID IF DISTANCE DOES NOT CHANGE. Only by ignoring the dilated moving clock can spatial contraction be claimed. You want to have two different physical affects induced into physics as a mere matter of perception and ignore one set of physical affects claimed due to motion to assert a different affect as a function of observer perception. THAT IS NOT PHYSICS.
Quote MacM:
They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.
Tubbythin "There is no "resting clock standard". That's the whole point."
[COLOR="red]What???? You got to be kidding. You state that there is a tick rate difference between clocks i.e. the moving clock is dilated and hence the resting clock tick rate is the comparative standard. It is not an absolute standard because you are not operating on an absolute scale but it is the standrd by which you declare the moving clock dilated. -- Shsss!. You now have two distinct clock tick rate the resting clock is assumed = 1.0000 and the dilated clock ticks slower by gamma function. I would think you would have known that.[/COLOR]
Quote MacM:
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.
Tubbythin "They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. [COLOR="blue]These cannot be considered physical facts. [/color]
[COLOR="red"]They apply a common velocity. Right. That is what I have said and it is physically incorrect to do so. That has been the point of the discussion. It is where relativity goes wrong. Nothing in my presentation claims time dilation is false. To the contrary it is realbut the issue is what is the cause and what is the consequence for physics and relativity. Remember "Velocity" is a calculation based on the ratio to two physical properties, delta distance / delta time. You start by asserting a physical affect "delta time" is less and then ignore that when claiming a common relative velocity, you have switched time standards in the middle of your physical analysis. The fact is IF time dilation is a physical reality then trip time can only be correct if distance does not change because velocity is a calculated value based on the two physical properties. You pull the bait and switch on time standards to assert the common relative velocity which then creates the secondary physical affect required to make accumulated time come out correct. You want to claim that the person will compute the same velocity because his clock is running at the same UN-dilated rate as the resting clock and he travels less distance meaning less time. Time is less because his clock physically is running slower - get it? To claim it accumulates because it is running slow OR because he traveled less distance is NOT a physics response. [/COLOR]
Quote MacM:It is utter stupidity.
Tubbythin "What's utter stupidity, imho, is writing a long essay about something you don't understand for no apparent reason."
Actually NO what is stupid is for others to assume when you question modern day physics that you do not understand physics. I uunderstand relativty quite well. I happen to disagree with it's foundation and conclusions. If you stop reciting what you have read elsewhere and use independant thought you will be able to see the falicy of relativity. The fact is I have a back ground in mechanical , electrical and nuclear engineering; with postgraduate electronics design. I've owned and operated an R&D Corporation that performed NASA Contracts as well as $1M contracts for manufacturers. I hold numerous patents, etc. Further not last OR least I have been on many web sites and have had "Formal" debates with a particle physicist of which he publically commended me for the quality of my questions and ultimately conceeded the potential correctness of some of my views, although he concluded for simplicitys sake he preferred to continue to use relativity even though my view seemed possible. Which by the way is perfectly OK. It is not OK to assert relativity is a correct physical view of the universe or is exclusively correct. It clearly is not.
Now that we have met I hope we can generate some actual intelligent conversation about some of these issues. FYI: I refuse to particiapte with those that want to just throw out rhetoric or cast innuendos. They have shown themselves to be hangers ons. It matters not what your education or profession is. What matters is your ability to talk physics and not just recite the works of others.
Speaking for myself I have no illusions of knowing it all or being totally correct. However, I damn well know more than most posters here have given me credit for knowing. Now we can advance this discussion into something intersting or it can be flushed down the toilet by bs, innuendo and rhetoric - your choice.
Well Kudos for at least making a series of responses compared to the curt attitudes by some others. Lets see just how germain they are.
Originally Posted by MacM
"The velocity of light is measured the same for every observer regardless of their relative velocity to the source" An exception to that is the Sagnac affect.
Tubbythin "No. To quote wiki": 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.
Perhaps I miss your point but your quote seems to repeat what I have just said.
Quote MacM:
Since this has been a physical measurement it has been assumed that light velocity is invariant rather than perhaps we do not understand the origin of light.
Tubbythin "No. We understand light very well."
You think you do. I think you are allowing yourself to be bamfuzzeled. It is easy to envision light being generated as an energy function (i.e. simular to Cerenkov Radiation) in a multi-energetic flowing spatial medium than be invariantly propogated in a static medium. Your inability (or unwillingness) to consider that possibility means you are being blind sided by your preconcieved ideas and understandings.
Quote MacM:
This conundrum is arbitrarily labled "Counter Intuitive" when it clearly should be labled "Sheer Nonsense".
Tubbythin "No. Counter-intuitive works reasonably well."
It actually doesn't work at all. It merely grants those citing it the latitude to ignore their shortcomings and continue to pretend that know more than everyonelse.
Quote MacM:
The truth is relativists don't really envision or treat inertial systems as equal. To resolve the untenable physical conflict of the equivelence of inertial systems Einstein published The General Relativity 15 years later and explained that only the observer that switches frames experiences relavistic change.
Tubbythin "No. This quite clearly isn't an untenable conflict of the equivalence of inertial frames since one of the frames isn't inertial."
Again you cleverly miss the point. It was my very point that one is not inertial - HINT "Mere Relative Velocity" is no longer a cause of change, acceleration (non-inertial Frame Switching) is.
Quote MacM:
"Frame Switching" is just a shallow cover phrase for the physical fact that to switch frames one must accelerate. That is if I experience F=ma then I undergo v = at and have force induced motion.
Tubbythin "No. F=/=ma in relativity."
You still attempt to avoid the issue. The issue is not how F=ma is dealt with in relativity but the fact that to switch frames one must accelerate (i.e - become non-inertial and break the mere relative velocity symmetry.
Quote MacM:
So only one inertial traveler can be considered to have motion and that is the one with the greatest delta velocity due to acceleration times time, the other is comparative rest.
Tubbythin "No. There is only one inertial traveller, the one that stays at home. Whether or not he's at rest or not depends on who is viewing him."
Once again you attempt to confuse the issue. I most certainly know about inertial rest, etc. My point is that in many cases you do not have knowledge of who accelerated or who accelerated the most. Further what is at issue is who will appear dilated (i.e. - have the slower running clock) While you will choose to deny an absolute frame the simple fact is one can (and should) assume it and from it both clocks may well have absolute velocity and yet be inertial. In such case they will have what appears to them (in absence of the absolute reference) to be equal relative velocity in which case you could not mathematically conclude who's clock is running slower by relativity. But the FACT is one may be and it will be the one that has had the greatest acceleration x time history. Are you going to stick your foot in your mouth and deny that?
Quote MacM:
SO we are no longer dealing with mere "Relative Velocity", we are dealing with some form of universal absolute velocity change relative to the other observer due to one having experienced F = ma.
Tubbythin "No. That does not follow."
Inadequate and incorrect response.
Quote MacM:
Relativists choose to ignore the fact that they are now claiming one observer has actual motion versus another which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest. That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes.
Tubbythin "No, this just doesn't make sense. Inertial =/= at rest, in general."
This is hilarious. You attempt to deny real motion caused by an acceleration force breaking the inertial condition by refering to inertial = rest.???? What ever is your point?
Quote MacM:
That is not to say there cannot be measurement changes it simply means they are clearly illusions of motion and not physical reality. "Observed" time dilation is a perception or measurement issue while in motion. The only true time dilation is that recorded between clocks once those clocks are returned to a common relative rest for direct comparision.
Tubbythin "Cosmic ray muons clearly falsify this. If its only an illusion, why do we observe that a cosmic ray muon travelling with high relative velocity has a longer lifetime than a stationary one? The illusion alters the laws of physics?"
Unfortunately your example says nothing about the issue. You do understand that cosmic muons have high velocity and assuming it is greater than ours and we are not running into them (since they come from all vectors) they would be expected to suffer time dilation.
Now lets see if you happen to know that a study was done where the speed of the earth toward other galaxies was computed correctly, according to other methods ( approx 300km/sec) by using cosmic muon ansitrophy to Earth! . The study conclusion was it is more accurate to compute using an absolute velocity of the muon than to use the muon relative velocity to the earth.!!! .
Quote MacM:
Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality.
Tubbythin "Now you're contradicting yourself."
No contridiction what-so-ever. If you have any reading comprehension ability at all you would have seen that my discussion is with respect to the duality of physical affects caused by a common cause according to relativity. This statement merely states a fact. Time dilation has been repeatedly measured and hence can be considered a physical reality.
Quote MacM:
The question then becomes what is the cause. A change in time tick rate or a change in distance? Unfortunately Einstein and relativits ignore the obvious. IF time tick rate dilation is a physical reality then Lorentz Contraction of space cannot exist.
Tubbythin "Err, no. If time dilation is a reality then length contraction must also be a reality."
Your inability to read english is showing more clearly. This presentation points out rather elequently that if you first assume a physical reality with respect to one clock you cannot then ignore that fact when computing the view of another observer. Either the clock ticks slow physically or it is merely a perception. What follows makes the point quite clear. At least if you actually read and comprehend and don't just turn a deaf ear and recite what you have read elsewhere.
Quote MacM:
That is because IF my clock is ticking slow i.e. - 0.5 ticks to your 1 tick, then my accumulated time for a trip is only correct if distance remained the same. If distance were infact foreshortened by 1/2 and my clocks ticked slowed to 1/2 then I would accumulate only 1/4 as many tick times for the trip. That is inconsistant with observation.
Tubby "There is no "correct" time. That's kinda the point."
Not an answer but an attempt to avoid the issue. Lets talk physics not rhetoric. You cannot prove a theory by quoting the theory.
Quote MacM:
Special Relativity is only valid mathematically because it ignores physical reality and applies two sets of time standards to the same clock at the same time. \
Tubbythin "No it does not. It applies two sets of time standards to two different clocks".
Incorrect. It applies two different time standards to both clocks as a function of who is considered at rest or in motion. In one view they claim the clock ticks slower than the resting observer's clock. Then in the other moving observers view they claim his second is comperable , that is 1 second is still 1 second and hence the fact that he accumulates less time for the trip is that distance foreshortened due to Lorentz Contraction of space. IF YOU MAINTIAN THE DILATED TICK RATE CLAIM BY THE RESTING OBSERVER THEN THE TRIP TIME IS ONLY VALID IF DISTANCE DOES NOT CHANGE. Only by ignoring the dilated moving clock can spatial contraction be claimed. You want to have two different physical affects induced into physics as a mere matter of perception and ignore one set of physical affects claimed due to motion to assert a different affect as a function of observer perception. THAT IS NOT PHYSICS.
Quote MacM:
They argue the moving observer experiences no change. That therefore 1 second is still 1 second. That can be true locally but it simply means he has a distorted measurement and it does not make his time standard equivelent to the resting clock standard.
Tubbythin "There is no "resting clock standard". That's the whole point."
[COLOR="red]What???? You got to be kidding. You state that there is a tick rate difference between clocks i.e. the moving clock is dilated and hence the resting clock tick rate is the comparative standard. It is not an absolute standard because you are not operating on an absolute scale but it is the standrd by which you declare the moving clock dilated. -- Shsss!. You now have two distinct clock tick rate the resting clock is assumed = 1.0000 and the dilated clock ticks slower by gamma function. I would think you would have known that.[/COLOR]
Quote MacM:
Relativity switches time standards between observers to make itself consistant mathematically to then claim distance changed.
Tubbythin "They apply a common relative velocity cause and then not only have respective observers undergo different physical affects but claim which affect depends on observer view point. [COLOR="blue]These cannot be considered physical facts. [/color]
[COLOR="red"]They apply a common velocity. Right. That is what I have said and it is physically incorrect to do so. That has been the point of the discussion. It is where relativity goes wrong. Nothing in my presentation claims time dilation is false. To the contrary it is realbut the issue is what is the cause and what is the consequence for physics and relativity. Remember "Velocity" is a calculation based on the ratio to two physical properties, delta distance / delta time. You start by asserting a physical affect "delta time" is less and then ignore that when claiming a common relative velocity, you have switched time standards in the middle of your physical analysis. The fact is IF time dilation is a physical reality then trip time can only be correct if distance does not change because velocity is a calculated value based on the two physical properties. You pull the bait and switch on time standards to assert the common relative velocity which then creates the secondary physical affect required to make accumulated time come out correct. You want to claim that the person will compute the same velocity because his clock is running at the same UN-dilated rate as the resting clock and he travels less distance meaning less time. Time is less because his clock physically is running slower - get it? To claim it accumulates because it is running slow OR because he traveled less distance is NOT a physics response. [/COLOR]
Quote MacM:It is utter stupidity.
Tubbythin "What's utter stupidity, imho, is writing a long essay about something you don't understand for no apparent reason."
Actually NO what is stupid is for others to assume when you question modern day physics that you do not understand physics. I uunderstand relativty quite well. I happen to disagree with it's foundation and conclusions. If you stop reciting what you have read elsewhere and use independant thought you will be able to see the falicy of relativity. The fact is I have a back ground in mechanical , electrical and nuclear engineering; with postgraduate electronics design. I've owned and operated an R&D Corporation that performed NASA Contracts as well as $1M contracts for manufacturers. I hold numerous patents, etc. Further not last OR least I have been on many web sites and have had "Formal" debates with a particle physicist of which he publically commended me for the quality of my questions and ultimately conceeded the potential correctness of some of my views, although he concluded for simplicitys sake he preferred to continue to use relativity even though my view seemed possible. Which by the way is perfectly OK. It is not OK to assert relativity is a correct physical view of the universe or is exclusively correct. It clearly is not.
Now that we have met I hope we can generate some actual intelligent conversation about some of these issues. FYI: I refuse to particiapte with those that want to just throw out rhetoric or cast innuendos. They have shown themselves to be hangers ons. It matters not what your education or profession is. What matters is your ability to talk physics and not just recite the works of others.
Speaking for myself I have no illusions of knowing it all or being totally correct. However, I damn well know more than most posters here have given me credit for knowing. Now we can advance this discussion into something intersting or it can be flushed down the toilet by bs, innuendo and rhetoric - your choice.
Ditto for ignorance.
Just where in the blankty blank do you see me say SR applies to a non-inerial system??? I have not. My point is that time dilation claimed to be the consequence of inertial "Relative velocity" is simply false and that GR IS required to cause time dilation. You should slow down and actually read what has been written.
Absolutely, I've never said otherwise. Now state your position on the GPS issue. Are the satellites inertial? Is SR applied? COme on stick your neck out so I can correct your attitude.
It would be constantly varying for any given satellite for any given point on the earth's surface, but the mean relative velocity of any satellite averaged over all ground locations would equal the orbital velocity of the satellite. The contribution of the earth's rotation averages out to zero, since for each point on the earth's surface, there's another point on the far side rotating the opposite direction. Hence, the calculation based on "absolute" velocity of the satellite relative to the center of the earth gives the correct answer, while the calculation based on an arbitrary wrong relative velocity between a satellite and a ground station does not. This does not falsify relativity.
Respectfully,
Myriad
When you apply SR to the GPS system -- a non-inertial system, because of the gravity differences -- without correcting for the GR effects (that actually dominate).
No.
Not correctly.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Hi MacM
Can you rell me where the value of "absolute velocity in the following comes from?
Otherwise: At what point did you cater for the motions of
Can you rell me where the value of "absolute velocity in the following comes from?
It seems to be the velocity of the GPS satellite with respect to an observer on the Earth. Is that your definition of "absolute velocity", i.e. a velocity measured with respect to an observer on Earth?
Otherwise: At what point did you cater for the motions of
- the Earth around the Sun,
- the Sun around the galaxy,
- the galaxy in the Local Cluster,
- the Local Custer,
- etc.
You basless assumptions are going to be your downfall. Let me suggest you quit while you are ahead. But just so you know if your attitude and innuendo persists I'll simply not reply to your BS.
You have shown that it is you that are inept. You clearly cannot read or lack reading comprehension. You are one of those that tag along pretending to understand just because you read a book, listened to a lecture or perhaps even memorized some course in college but don't have an independant thought of your own. No actual grass roots understanding of physics.
My OP was not confrontational. It was invitational to discuss certain issues. I'm not intersted in hearing recitals of the theory. I have done that far to many time. However, when other seem to think they can just cast innuendos or make blatantly false accusations with respect to my understanding then you bet I will become confrontational. Most here seem to be under the false concept if you question relativity you don't understand it.
I challenge you to point out any statement I have made about what relativtyasserts that is inconsistant with it. I have and do point consequences that most don't ever even think about. For example that at relavistic velocities you reach a point where under acceleration you get closer to the object you are receeding from. Care to disagree with that?
My impression of "Are you here to learn" is that you think you are ready to teach. I do not think that is the case. I think you are indoctrinated and merely want to try and impose the standard BS rehetoric.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Small problem with this, MacM.
Time dilation as consequence of inertial "Relative velocity" is actually measured in situations where the effects of GR can be ignored. Thus it exists and is true.
You may want to read the papers on the tests of SR listed in What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
For example: High energy physics experiments measure the lifetime of nuclear particles. The faster that they move relative to the observer the longer the lifetime. The magnitude of the time dilation is that predicted by Special Relativity.
ETA: An applicable experiment form the above web page is:
Last edited:
There seems to be a disconnect here. People seem to associate the discussion regarding time and space in absolute terms to mean I do not understand the time-space of relativity. That happens to be untrue.
The point here is that to make relativty function one must accept the duality of physical change from a common cause and it is against Osccam's Razor to do that.
It is far more logical and physics is more sensable (i.e. - not counter intuitive) to view things in the alternative. So I am not debating what relativity says but the veracity of the concept.
The term Fudge factor was used because initially Einstein claimed equivelence between frames and asserted that either observer with relative motion can be assumed at rest.
That view is false and is no longer used. GR broke the symmetry of inertial SR. So my point is that SR is invalid in that respect. You cannot claim you use SR to determine a clocks relative accumulated time or it's time dilation when compared to a resting clock without knowlwedge about how that relative velocity was achieved.
For example I give you the following:
1 - Given two clocks "A" & "B" that by whatever means have been synchronized while both are at relative rest.
2 - These two clocks now have an inertial relative velocity.
3 - Given the relative velocity value, when they are brought together, one hour later according to clock "A", at a common rest; which clock will have accumulated lesser time?
If you can answer that without first asking which clock(s) accelerated and for how long then Special Relativity as originally written without GR is valid.
If you must bring in GR then SR is not valid. It is GR that is the root cause of the change. The inertial velocity is being produce by force induced acceleration causing v by a x t. It is the induced velocity times time that causes dilation NOT mere "Relative Velocity".
Now you respond properly to that and I'll conceed, otherwise I'm due (although do not ever expect) apologies from several here. I don't expect it because contrary to comments made about me, they are in fact descriptions of those here "They just are never wrong, relativity is absolutely correct" - Shsssh!!
BINGO. The first to take the dive. So you assert GPS employs SR compensation of clocks?
Did you read my calculations? These aren't alternative views they are the actual values and how they adre computed.
1 - SR disallows preferred frames.
2 - GPS computes orbit relative to the center of the Earth a preferred rest frame - Not relative velocity to surface clocks.
3 - Surface clock tick rate doesn't change with latitude because of the oblate sphereoid form of the earth. That is as you change latidtude you also change distance to the center of the earth and coincidentally the Gravity change and the surface Velocity change are equally opposite.
4 - tick rate is affected by altitude.
5 - Given the "Relative Velocity" between orbit velocity minus surface velocity using SR you get a velocity lose of 5.58 micro-seconds/day.
That is an INCORRECT value.
6 - However given the LORENTZ Relativity orbit velocity gamma - surface velocity gamma, one gets a time lose of 7.2 micro-seconds/day.
7 - LORENTZ allows and uses referred frames and so does GPS. It does NOT use Special Relativity and relative velocity between clocks to compute GPS times.
Now you know. You clearly did not before. SO who is the teacher here.?
Now you should either point out specifically an error in my calculations or apologize.
Nope. Your has no mention of inertial coordinates.
I've considered the possibility of what I think you're trying to say and have rejected it because (if I understood what you are trying to say correctly) it was disproved over a century ago.
Nope. The maths works all fine thanks. All I really care about is: do the predictions of SR match reality in the domain to which SR is applicable? The answer is yes every time. Unless you know of a case I don't.
Erm, you seemed to have missed the point of the twin paradox. There is only a paradox because the twin that goes out comes back. Two come back he cannot be in an inertial frame for his whole journey therefore we must consider relativity in a non-inertial frame to solve the apparent paradox. This does not mean that relativistic differences do not occur between two inertial frames.
F doesn't equal ma in relativity! As for the rest of it... I have no idea what you're getting at.
Erm. In which cases in particular?
Why should I assume it?
I'm going to say I have no idea what you mean.
I'm sorry. But as far as I'm concerned, your opinion on such things is of no value.
Er, no. This is hilarious because you are not making a word of sense. You said "which has remained inertial and hence IS at relative rest". This makes no sense whatsoever unless you say relative to what is at rest.
So muons have feelings now? If they "suffer" time dilation then time dilation must be a physical reality and absolutely not an in illusion. I can measure the lifetime of a muon whether it is at rest relative to me or not. Guess what? It differs depending on its relative velocity.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
I agree that its a physical reality. Unfortunately for you, you said:
"That mere "Relative Velocity" has never and never can cause any physical changes"
and then
"Since time dilation affects have been precisely measured then it is a physical reality"
then you are quite obviously contradicting yourself.
You haven't pointed anything out eloquently whatsoever. You seem to have missed the point the relativity tells us that time and space are dependent on motion. One physical reality for one observer can be different to another observer. Like the cosmic muons. Its half life in its reference frame is the same as a stationary muon in my reference frame. But because of time dilation this cosmic muon appears to have a longer lifetime than it should. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any acceleration effects.
It ticks slowly physically. That's why the muon lifetime we measure is longer. Case closed.
Nope its absolutely essential to SR that you understand there is no preffered inertial reference frame. Dismising this as "Not an answer but an attempt to avoid the issue" just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
Writing in caps doesn't do you any favours if you were trying to convince people you weren't a crackpot. By the way, what do you mean by "VALID"?
Huh? In any inertial reference frame speed = distance/time.
Nope. It has nothing to do with perception. SR stems originally from trying to make Maxwell's equations the same in all reference frames. If you don't have SR then Maxwell's equations and thus the laws of physics in general are frame dependent and we could in fact pick a preffered reference frame. However, the quantum version of Maxwell's equations just happens to be probably the best tested theory in the history of physics and agrees exactly with SR.
Meet the Lorentz transformations
No. Try learning about relativity. Then you might be able to write a sensible essay one day.
What accumulates?
That's not why we think you don't understand. We think you don't understand because you've got many many things completely wrong.
I beg to differ.
The fallacy that it has been tested to extraordinarily high precision and has never once failed?
Guess what? I don't care.
Got any evidence of this?
I beg to differ.
So why did you just try to defend your essay with a "I worked for NASA comment"?
What, bs like:
Last edited:
Another meaningless innuendo. I suspect the shoe is on the othercfoot here since you can't make specific talking points.
Your confusion here is understandable. You do not recognize an absolute frame and hence do no see how a relative veloicty to that frame is absolute.
Let me see if I can give you a simpler example. One that you might equate to.
1 - Assume the state trooper parked along side the highway is at absolute rest.
2 - You are racing your friend down the highway and are breaking the speed limit by a ticketable amount.
3 - We'll let you be winning the race since I sense you are likely sensative to winning. You are going 10 Mph faster relative to your friend.
4 - But guess what that did not protect you from the fact that you were going "Absolutely" 110 Mph "Relative" to the state trooper.
So where is there any mutually exclusive statement here???
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 422
MacM,
I'm gonna take a poke at this without much math since I gather you don't like math. If you have two clocks that you somehow synchronized, and those clocks were in relative motion, they will never meet again in STR. If you want to accelerate one of them several times and have it boomerang back, it is you that has now introduced a non-inertial frame. Or you might add gravity, but it's you doing that.
So, it's not kosher for you to introduce acceleration and then say, "if you have to consider acceleration, STR is wrong". You are the one who keeps introducing the idea that you then object to.
You seem like a reasonably smart person, just not about STR. Would you like some pointers on how to learn a little more?