Pragmatic Failure of Special Relativity

[Dancing David]

You clearly don't get it. I don't have a different version of relativity (well I do but it hasn't been part of this thread). This thread is about the mis-representation of relativity by professionals.

Ah yes, your misrepresentation, the misrepresentation of high schools texts and then what? The misrepresentation of popular science books.

Some how your data showing that professionals misrepresent the science is rather lacking.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry without going back and searching (and guessing) what you are talking about I'm at a loss to reply. Can you give the specific example and highlight where you think I have done that in my definitions.

Nice dodge, that will help your vestibular system, as will all the arm waving.

 

[Dancing David]

None given. Perhaps you might like to comment about the differnt opinions of the many posters here.

1 =- Mere relative velocity causes permanent time loss. Clocks directly compared in a common rest frame after having experienced relative velocity without any acceleration consideration will have accumulated time difference.

2 - GPS uses SR

3 - GPS doesn't use SR and can't becuse it is non-inertial system

4 - Orbit is inertial because it is in free-fall.

Look at me, i can't make a coherent or clear argument, it is obviously the fault of other people.

All you need is some plasma to make the cycle complete.

 

[69dodge]

It might be a silly question, but from the 'younger' sister's POV, doesn't the OTHER sister move instead ?

Yes, but the younger sister's POV doesn't count, because she wasn't moving inertially the whole time. Her ship had to turn around, to return to Earth, and while that was happening, she was pushed around inside the ship, the same as you get pushed around inside your car when you make a fast turn.

Special relativity doesn't say that anyone at all can be considered at rest, and the motion of everyone else measured relative to her. It just says that anyone who moves always inertially can be considered at rest.

 

[MacM]

No. Flat no. There is no time spent in acceleration, nor does introducing it change the results. As mentioned by others, you can avoid ever changing the clocks' motions by pairing them with clocks that are "inbound" to C, and synchronise their times when they rendezvous with the "outbound" ones. This alters none of the predictions.

There is however time spent in inertial motion, which is what the times I spoke about refer to.

And the times are not measured from a "common rest frame" - they can be measured from any inertial frame, and the results will still match up. Did you miss that the clocks A and B experience the same total time no matter which frame you picked as a reference?

(If, by "common rest frame", you actually mean "inertial reference frame", may I strongly recommend that you change your terminology)

If I understand your scenario I have to say all you have is a mahtematical model prediction with absoluely no emperical confirmation.

 

[MacM]

See the little arrow next to the name of the person in the quoted section? That takes you back to the quoted post. You can use it to find your way back. I am not going to do it for you.

As I said in my first response to your definitions, which I quoted, you used the words themselves in the definition. Read what you wrote to see what I mean.

Thanks for the "Arrow" explanatin. That is really handy.

Relative Velocity: A magnitude of differential displacement per unit time experienced between two observers that has vectors joining each other.

 

[MacM]

You have repeatedly talked about "permanent time dilation". I was pointing out that there isn't really such thing as non-permanent time dilation.

Yes there is it is the percieved time dilation between observers with relative motion. Each sees the other as time dilated but only one will emperically ever be dilated relative to the other.

The time dilation not supported by emperical data on direct comparison in a common frame is non-permanent time dilation. No problem with it's existance. The problem is far to often professionals insist it is physically real while it is actually merely an illusion of motion.

It is no more real than the frightening sensation being stopped at a RR crossing as a train zooms by and the car next to you slowly starts to roll backwards giving the sensation that you are rolling forward into the train.

 

[MacM]

Its a joke that your claims happen to be inconsistent with the most precisely tested theory in physics?

Funny you can't seem to grasp that the root issue here has never been supported by all that wonderful testing.

 

[MacM]

It might be a silly question, but from the 'younger' sister's POV, doesn't the OTHER sister move instead ?

Good we have a bite. This is the very issue I have raised. People are confused by the "mere" relative velocity issue. I point out you have frequently chastized me but you seem to suffer from the very misunderstanding I have attempted to expose.

Great.

 

[69dodge]

I also have made these arguement because so many errors exist in modern books by purported experts. i.e. Green in his book about the Universe and strings.

He erroneously states that Bill and Bob are on a merry go round. Bill is at the rim and Bob along the radial supports.

That they each have rulers and crawl along their respective tracks and measure the merry go round while it is at rest and they come up with a value of the circumference/radius = Pi.

But he then continues and states that when the merry go round is in moton bob doesn't measure a change in the radius but that Bill will mesure the rim as being shorter and the ratio is no longer Pi.

That is flat incorrect. If the rim shrank so did Bill's ruler and Bill will not measure the rim differently.

The rim may appear and measure shorter to an observer not on the merry go round but that is not the case as presented.

Are you sure the book says that Bill will measure the rim as being shorter? I don't have the book, but I would guess the opposite: Bill's ruler will shrink, as you say, but the rim of the merry-go-round won't, if the whole merry-go-round is strong enough not break apart, because the rim is attached to the rest of it.

 

[MacM]

So it's a conspiracy ?

Now I know you're a woo. When you start claiming that those who disagree with you do so on purpose, you're beyond reason.

I've said nothing about a conspiracy. It is as simple as educated people all want to flaut their intelligence and to do that attempt to talk over others.

A conspiracy would be a collective effort as a group to purposely decieve.

This rather is an issue of individual egos. It should be obvious from the responses here that there is no conspiracy because the posters can't even agree with each other, yet all attempt to elevate their own status by trying to talk down to me or anyone challenging their view.

 

[MacM]

Speculation is stronger than science?

Yes until you prove that it is not coincidence, then you malke that assumption. Otherwise sample bias is always a possibility. Controlling for bias and sample effects is normal.

You are getting farther froms cience, next perhaps the consiracy will grow.

The bias here is clearly in your camp. You assume they are wrong or have deliberately fudged results so as to not consider the possibility they have discovered an important new principle in the search for the truth.

This is not to advocate their test or the conclusions but to point out once again the absolute bias against anything in the alternative science field.

Alternative has been given a negative conotation unjustly. That is because anything that appears to challenge the status quo of relativity is ignored period.

Sorry for highlighting the many typos and spelling errors but since others have seen fit to assault me for them then it is only fair to return the favor.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, but the younger sister's POV doesn't count, because she wasn't moving inertially the whole time. Her ship had to turn around, to return to Earth, and while that was happening, she was pushed around inside the ship, the same as you get pushed around inside your car when you make a fast turn.

Special relativity doesn't say that anyone at all can be considered at rest, and the motion of everyone else measured relative to her. It just says that anyone who moves always inertially can be considered at rest.

That seems clearer already!

Thanks. So if I understand this correctly GPS sattelites are never at rest because they're not moving inertially.

 

[Belz...]

Good we have a bite. This is the very issue I have raised.

And yet somebody answered my question right away and I'm less confused now.

People are confused by the "mere" relative velocity issue. I point out you have frequently chastized me but you seem to suffer from the very misunderstanding I have attempted to expose.

No, I was confused about one point because I hadn't really considered it before.

 

[sol invictus]

It might be a silly question, but from the 'younger' sister's POV, doesn't the OTHER sister move instead ?

As 69dodge says, there is no symmetry between the sisters. As the traveling sister moves away, she will notice her earthbound twin moving slowly and aging less - so the earthbound sister will be younger. However when the space sister fires her rockets to stop and go back the other way, while she's undergoing that acceleration she will see the earth sister move and age very rapidly. During the inbound leg the earth sister will again be aging more slowly... but the cumulative effect is that she has aged more.

In the earthbound sister's frame there is no acceleration, so things are simpler: the space sister ages more slowly the entire time, and so comes back younger.

Cool, huh?

 

[Belz...]

I've said nothing about a conspiracy. It is as simple as educated people all want to flaut their intelligence and to do that attempt to talk over others.

A conspiracy would be a collective effort as a group to purposely decieve.

Using confusing terms to muddle the issue to that laymen can't understand that they're talking nonsense and maintaining this statu quo IS a conspiracy in my book.

Of course it's also non-existant.

This rather is an issue of individual egos.

Yours, specifically.

As I said before, you don't understand the issue and you are using the fact that you don't understand it as proof that it doesn't work. Fortunately the universe doesn't have to cater to your disabiilties.

It should be obvious from the responses here that there is no conspiracy because the posters can't even agree with each other, yet all attempt to elevate their own status by trying to talk down to me or anyone challenging their view.

Just because there are competing ideas doesn't make yours true.

 

[sol invictus]

If I understand your scenario I have to say all you have is a mahtematical model prediction with absoluely no emperical confirmation.

OK, let's be absolutely clear: you're saying SR's prediction is wrong in that situation?

Once we have your answer we can look at the empirical evidence.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry for highlighting the many typos and spelling errors but since others have seen fit to assault me

Do you need some facial tissues to go with that whining ?

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Ha. Can't tell a joke. We all know the equilibrium is in the inner ear but the pressure from acceleartion of gravity in on my As.... countered by the chair, supported bythe fllor , held in place by mother earth.

Nah, this one I'm sure of. The vestibular system measures a. What you feel on your butt is from proprioceptors. You're from Texas, aren't you? I can give you some things to check out over at JSC if you want.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are right it is omega ^2. My boo boo. If you knew hom many times I have used that formula you would know it is just an omission here and not lack of knowledge.

I believe you. But the equation you gave is still for centripetal force, not centrifugal force. I suggest you actually read one of those physics textbooks to see what it says about centrifugal forces, because it's not going to say what you've been saying.