A Test of Special Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Jun 14, 2005.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    MacM:

    You say the Earth is at rest every time you talk about your silly 0.433c "launch point" of A and B, which you say has to be used to calculate the relative time dilation of A and B (non-existent, according to you).

    The fact that you don't recognise this shows just how far off the rails you really are.

    I only ever use the correct "relavistic" (sic) mathematics.

    I understand that the ECI frame is not a "common, local, preffered rest frame" (sic).

    L and E are the same frame. Are you getting confused again? Or trying to confuse?

    Can't you tell when something has been addressed? I've addressed it too many times to count. Wake up.

    A and B never record a "mutual" time dilation, because A and B are in different reference frames. Nothing they do is "mutual". I've already explained that to you very carefully above. Re-read it.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    This is crap and deserves none of my time. Pathetic James R, pathetic. Nothing but distortlions, lies and fabricated BS. My view of relativity works in all cases and is supported by all emperical data.

    Yours view is not supported by data except when L and E just happen to be at relative rest it is 50% correct. I'll go with being 100% correct 100% of the time. Your are free to choose being only 50% correct in a small fracton of cases.

    Now stop distorting the record.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Good then you finally reject the SRT concept that any inertial system may be considered "at rest". You are losing it James R. The more you try to hang on to your lousy SRT the deeper you dig the hole you are in.

    Laughable James R, absolutely laughable. I hope others are paying attention here.

    For anybody posting what you have been jposting in this thread, I would not be telling others to learn. I clearly am more correct than yourself. Sorry you are unable to face reality.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    MacM,

    I will not respond to any of your stupid A/B/C examples as they are obviously wrong based on the known behavior of the universe. You have zero understanding of SR as it is currently formulated. You should go read some basic SRT before continuing.

    Also, you repeatedly state that there is NO evidence for SR in 100 years of experiments. You are the liar here. Not only are you a liar, but you are clearly delusional.

    Absolute trash. You are not interested in resolving anything. My last post was intended to bring this back to some rational level of discussion. Obviously a failure. (I note that you never explained your distinction between mutual dilation and "reciprocity").

    As for cheapening your posts, how could my post make an already worthless lump of crap any cheaper?

    Your posts are childish in their naievete. Very sad to put yourself and your ignorance on public display like this.
     
  8. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    I get it now. Man, you're just plain dumb.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Time to find a new forum, I think, MacM. You've gone about as far as you want to go on this one, obviously. Now it's just "Cover your ears and pretend not to hear".
     
  10. Rogue Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    Wow, what a thread. Kinda makes you want to eat a baby.

    I read the whole thing carefully, but I still don't get either side's take,
    other than one of you dislikes SRT and the others think it should be defended.

    SRT obviously has its problems: For one thing it's incomplete, since GR is needed. So why does it need defending so vigorously?

    SRT is just Einstein as a crazy teenager. We really should listen to him as an adult. Even then, a grain of salt is in order. Why not take this down a few notches and discuss the real problems with SRT?

    The silly simultaneity problems and hypothetical perceptions by 'Relativonaughts' flying almost as fast as light are unrealistic. Why not attack the bedrock philosophical problems and questions? Then there might be progress.

    Even SRT-philes should be able to come to the table with some humility. Sure it's fun to have a speed limit to drive your electromagnetic waves safely, but don't you want to open the throttle of that massless photon once in a while, and feel the aether in your hair, at least in a relatively straight geodesic out in deep space?
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Interesting. You have failed to resovle these issues and yet you pretend.

    Bye.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I see you too have no answer. It is you that should find a new forum since you are failing here.

    Bye.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2005
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Welcome "Rouge". The only thing is the issues I have raised prove relativity is a fraud and these imbecilles pretend to know so much but can't even respond to the issue raised.

    You waste your breath with these clowns.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,345
    Hello Rogue Physicist,

    You're coming into this at the end. There's a long history of discussion here, particularly between MacM and "defenders" of relativity. The discussions started off cordially and productively, but MacM has lost the ability and the will to discuss his position any more. Now he just rants and raves about how he has proven relativity wrong.

    Those who can't grasp SRT are not going to be able to understand GR. SR is GR in flat spacetime. Baby steps before giant leaps.

    Ok. Shoot. What are the "real problems"?
     
  15. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    I can't believe you people are STILL arguing about this and haven't banned MacM to finally get rid of this nonsense.
     
  16. lil miss demosthenes heisenberg may have slept here Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    72
  17. Rogue Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    That seems more reasonable already!

    How about this thought experiment:

    Once upon a time there were two physicists. One was a theorist. Not so practical with his hands, but a clever mathematician and quite the abstract thinker. At times he was inclined to be a Platonist, but often slipped into a positivist bent when depressed. Usually not much could shake his commitment to the reality of higher truths behind the physical observations, and elegant structures hidden in apparently chaotic surfaces.

    The other was a gifted experimentalist. He was extremely clever at building accurate devices with which he could test any idea or measure any attribute under the most adverse conditions. And what's more, he was practical. He often cut to the core and dispelled circular premises or lopped off groundless hypothesis with a brutal splash of ice-cold double-blind apparatus. Normally he was a realist, firmly believing in an objective reality behind the world he measured, but sometimes he would temporarily drift backwards into pragmatism until he could solve one technical problem or another.

    By coincidence, the two were assigned a paradoxical challenge: find evidence of the aether and/or fashion an explanation, and device appropriate proofs of any discovery with impeccably small and accurate estimates of error. The second physicist's task was to devise the foolproof measurement apparatus, based upon solid scientific principles, while the first would interpret the results in a coherent and consistent theoretical structure of lasting durability.

    As it happened, the experimentalist finished his task early, and couldn't resist testing the machine, which was designed to measure the speed of light with a previously unheard of accuracy: Strangely, the device always read the same speed, regardless of intertial frame, acceleration, or orientation. In fact, the needle never moved at all. He took the entire machine apart and rebuilt it again and again with the same results! He went over every detail, every physical principle in every part of the machine, but still, could not find anything to explain the strange behaviour of his invention. Completely flabbergasted and stumped, he headed home early to sleep on it, knowing that in the morning he would know what he had done wrong.

    Meanwhile the other physicist arrived to begin his share of the work. There was the machine. He studied it carefully: it was impeccably engineered and built according to the latest scientific knowledge and physical principles. The theorist was awed by the elegance of the design, and secretly a little embarrassed, knowing that he himself could not have carried off this part of the task so well. Satisfied that all was perfect, he fired up the machine and began an exhaustive series of iron-clad tests with the device. Lo and behold: the needle never moved! The speed of light was always the same under any and all conditions the theorist could devise to alter it. Shocked and puzzled, the theorist went home to ponder and sleep on the profound data he had recorded. He even considered the ridiculous, such as hidden wires, or a prank, but all possibilities were exhausted as well as he, and he fell asleep.

    Eureka! the Theorist exclaimed, when he woke up, after dreaming of objects compressing, and time slowing down, and planes of simultaneity shifting like loose decks of cards. It is elementary: there is a distortion between frames of reference. the math is simple. voila! SRT.

    Eureka! the Experimentalist exclaimed when he woke up. How could I have been such a dunce. The needle never moves, because I haven't been measuring a speed at all. What I have observed has none of the attributes of that thing we call 'speed'. I have misunderstood what I thought I was measuring. There is nothing wrong with the device. It's all in my assumptions. The scientific axioms and assumptions I used to build the device are incorrect.

    The two ran into each other, and blurted out at the same time:

    "The world is not as we thought it was. There are different principles operating than we had assumed." Both laughed.

    The theorist explained his idea. Incredible remarked the experimentalist, I also have an explanation, although it is somewhat different than yours. Yet we start with a similar discovery: However your theory can't be right, because I built the machine according to principles that are now known to be false. Not so fast said the theorist: look how elegant and self-consistent my interpretation is. You don't have to design or build any more experiments. My findings are consistent with your machine.

    I am not happy, the experimentalist noted. We haven't really proved anything at all. It's all very convenient and consistent, but I'm going to continue building and testing with new apparatus, because it just isn't convincing.
    Let us agree to disagree then about the result says the theorist. No point in ending our warm friendship over something so nebulous.
     
  18. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Wonderful story. In this last section your experimentalist has an epiphany. He hasn't been measuring speed at all! And he has built the machine "according to principles that are now known to be false."

    Can you please explain your position in non-story form?
     
  19. Rogue Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    There is no 'speed of light'. Light has no relation to either time or space, and since it is independant of space-time, it has no mass either.
    As Einstein remarked about the aether, "We have no need of the hypothesis."
    It is time to let go of primitive concepts like light as a wave/particle having a 'speed', which were based upon outdated modes of thinking.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2005
  20. superluminal I am MalcomR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,876
    Ok. Do you have a theory of light "not having speed" that you would care to share?
     
  21. Rogue Physicist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    I'll wait to publish. But you can simply treat light as a fifth orthogonal dimension accessible from any point in space-time for now, and keep 'c' constant without adding any complex and unnecessary apparatus to Gen Rel. Think of 'light' as a potential field sitting just outside of standard spacetime. It can have it's own affine structure and even 'interact' with spacetime giving the appearance of photons, waves, or even strings. That's all up to how you want to do it. I'd bone up on 5 dimensional manifolds first.
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2005
  22. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Nice claim. The fact is, if you can measure how long it takes something to get from point A to point B, that can be called "velocity". Makes you think huh?

    Is there light in your space at this time?

    In what capacity is it independent?

    As mass and energy are related via Einstein's famous equation, this statement is somewhat "squishy". If its energy can be shown to be equivalent to mass, and you can't put it on the scale to weigh it, your statement seems unsupported.

    *sigh*

    If you're going to make a statement like that, it would probably be good to offer some form of support for it.

    I hypothesize that your ego has imploded, like MacM's. I hope you'll show that to be incorrect.
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,845
    Since light can be shown to take time to get from one place to another, it's difficult for me to imagine it as an orthogonal dimension. It reflects, bends, refracts, diffuses, can be focused, unfocused.... SLOWED, etc. It seems to me that an orthogonal dimension should not behave in such a manner.

    What is your explanation?
     

Share This Page