How, exactly? In the rest frame, d = 100cm, v = 0.866c, t = 115 seconds How does adjusting length and velocity in the moving frame affect those numbers? If in the moving frame, d = 1000cm, v = 17.32c, and t = 57 seconds, then why would the rest frame numbers have to change? The time dilation factor i still exactly as you specified.
It never ceases to amaze me how fast the Revatitly Fans of this forum take any thread about length contraction, absolute space, etc., etc. and as quickly as possible hijack the thread and turn it into discussion one billion plus one about the twin paradox. What is the basis of the pathological fascination with the twin paradox? Is it simply so abstract that it seems to be unprovable and therefore safe ground? Safer than having to defend length contraction or mass increase? Length and mass are easily visualized and common to normal experience, therefore not remote enough to be safe to debate?
Like I said in # 1. You have no basis to change such relationships. That is what SRT does and it is without a physics cause. It is nothing short of incredable that you seem to think birfurcating reality is physics. That is you want to simply make up rules as you go along and disassociate any physical links between frames other than those you want to imply. :bugeye: Then too the emperical gamma would no longer be represented. Is that how you want to argue this? Make up physics systems, even if they fail to coincide with observed reality? My interpretation is consistant with observation and mathematics. Lets keep your links between frames consistant as well. Please show us how you want to claim time dilation of 50%, contraction of 50% in frames but then claim an expansion of length in another. We are waiting.
You repeatedly make claims like this, but the math simply does not back you up. I know you disdain math in favor of your handwaving and arguments, but you really should try it every once in a while. Let's say we are at rest in your unaccelerated frame. We use a rail gun to accelerate meter markers to a speed of .866 c. We fire one every 1 m/(.866 c) = 1.15 m/c (one m/c is the amount of time for light to travel 1 meter), so they are spaced exactly one meter apart. So, now, lets bounce a photon between any two neighboring markers. We find that the photon travels a total of 8 m and takes a time of 8 m/c. Our foolhardy buddy straps himself to one of the meter markers and gets accelerated to .866 c also. Now, according to the MacM Transform, his time is slowed by a factor of 2 and the meter markers are still 1 m apart. So if it takes 8 m/c for us then it takes 4 m/c for him to bounce a photon between markers. For him the light travels 2 m. So the velocity of light for him is 2 m /(4 m/c) = .5 c. The speed of light is frame variant under the MacM Transform. If you don't accept the invariance of c, that is fine. But if you accept that then you are stuck with both time dilation and length contraction. -Dale
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. :bugeye: You are bordering on being absurd. My presentation is completely mathematically consistant. Your arguement is not. You are doing the hand waving making completely disjointed assertions. In that frame. Using "c" invariance as your standard makes the spacing whatever you choose depending on frame of choice. Get real. You seem able to confuse yourself but you don't fool me. Stick with the scenario given and dispute it. Don't write your own versions and agrue it is the same and violates 'c' invariance. My view is independant of that arguement and is based strickly on the emperically demonstrated time dilation factor, regardless of origin. If as Pete tried to claim the moving frame calculates 17.32c then the rest frame MUST calculate 8.66c because the emperical relationship by physics is t' = t/2.
If length is invariant then the moving meter markers are just as good as the stationary ones. I'm not the one making the rules of your transform. I am just deriving the consequences. So which is it? Are the moving markers the same or not? -Dale
Yes they are. If that somehow disproves your invariant 'c' (which I seriously doubt) so bit it because the assumption that such invariance is mere illusion in any case. You post does not alter the conclusion of the original scenario. At best you are helping prove relativity flawed. Thanks
I predict you will not trap an experienced duck and weaver with logic. (MacM gave 15 different duck and weaves before quitting in the thread "Is time universal ... ." Eventually he will just start a new thread, as this one.) All that MacM disputes (SRT etc.) follows logically from one simple starting point: (0) Physic is the same in all inertial frames. {I am not sure the adjective "inertial" is required. MacM has admitted that he believes an absolute rest frame exists, but also that this can not be demonstrated, so MacM posts consistently, according to his faith, not science. } Hence, from (0) above: (1) Maxwell's equations describe all EM waves, light included, for all frames. (2) Vacuum magnetic permeability and dielectric constant are same, for all frames. {SOL (and all EM waves) can be calculated from these two lab measurements - Maxwell did predict vacuum SOL, radio waves, etc. this way.} (3) Speed of light in vacuum is same, for all frames. (4) Time dilation and length contraction of clocks and objects in the moving frame, as given by SRT equations, are required to make SOL constant, when time and distances in frame moving wrt yours are measured (observed, without or correcting for perception effects) with your clocks and rulers., for all frames. {Pete has recently presented a nice proof of this but, as is his style, left it to the reader to work out the details, at least for the present.} Even if SRT were false: Events simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in any other moving with respect to it. This is proven, (but of course denied by MacM, who believes in universal time, and one absolute frame in which “velocity history” must be measured.) by the “thought experiment” of the "Is time universal ..." thread. This “thought experiment” assumed only. Assumption: Experiment assumes that the speed of light in any one frame is not dependent upon the direction in which the light is traveling. For example, the conclusions of the experiment (that simultaneous events in one frame are not simultaneous in another moving wrt to the first) still follows if the speed of light in the embankment frame is only 10^4m/s and in the frame of the train is 3x10^8m/s. (I.e. SRT is NOT assumed.) This “thought experiment” postulated two things. Postulates: (1)Very brief light flash occurs when its source is midway between two photo triggers of firecrackers mounted on side of moving train, one near front and one near rear of train. (Perhaps, a flash bulb is mounted on side of train at mid point, or from mid point of train, a copper arm extends to complete electrical circuit for flash bulb mounted on post in the ground.) (2) To avoid disputable corrections for any propagation delays, there are adjacent to firecrackers, in both train and ground frame, clocks that stop and record the time the explosions. From this assumption alone the experiment’s results are: (a) Both stopped clocks on the train show the same time ==> Simultaneous Explosions. (b) Ground clock at rear explosion shows earlier time for that explosion than recorded by clock at the front explosion location. ==> Not Simultaneous Explosions. (During the interval while light is approaching the photo triggers, the rear of the train moves closer to the flash origin, an invariant point in space, and the front of train moves further away from this point.) MacM does not agreed that simultaneous events in one frame are not simultaneous in another* but no longer has anything to say as to why. (His 15 prior duck and weaves, spoke of length contraction, lack of "same photons," time dilation, velocity history, and many more things that have nothing to do with the experiment or its assumption.) I predict that when he can no longer, as James recently put it "muddy the waters," in reply to logic of Dalespan and others, he will just start a new thread. (BTW James R. preceded me in noting Mack's extraordinary ability to "duck and weave.") ____________________________________ *This is why, for example, MacM's “Reciprocity shows that SRT is nonsense.” is itself nonsense. In his “reciprocity argument,” MacM speaks of “accumulated time” but fails to realize that even if the accumulation periods begin when the passing clocks are adjacent. They will be far apart when the “stop accumulation” event occurs. That is, each of the observer's two clocks, moving wrt each other, will stop accumulating time (say after 10^6 ticks of identical clocks) but for each observer, the other did not stop accumulating time simultaneously with the stopping of his clock. For both, the other let his clock run too long before stopping it to be simultaneous with his stopping his. I.e. Simultaneously (for A) with stopping of A’s clock, B’s clock had accumulated less than 10^6 ticks or “was running slow.” If one understands that "simultaneous" for A is not "simultaneous" for B and conversely, it is MacM's "reciprocity" objection, which is clearly nonsense, not SRT. MacM thinks “simultaneity” has nothing to due with time accumulation measurements. He thinks that both can simultaneous stop and if they do so that both show 10^6 ticks accumulated. He thinks SRT is nonsense, despite its many experimental confirmations or the above logic which shows: Events simultaneous in one frame, such as the same firecracker explosion measured by a local clock used as the “stop event,” are not simultaneous in another frame. In the train example above, zero time is accumulated in the train frame between the two explosions but some quantity of time is accumulated in the ground frame as the “rear explosion” precedes the one at the front of train. Only an expert “duck and weaver", self confident in his faith in the universality of time and absolute space, can avoid this conclusion and “muddy the waters” to divert the attention of readers from the obvious consequences of the single, non-SRT assumption, above. PS In this thread, MacM appears to be developing a duck and weave which focuses on his idea that clocks are slow only because of their acceleration in F = ma, which caused them to be moving (presumably wrt his unstated rest frame). This is a modification of his old "velocity history" argument, but it avoids making obvious his faith in an absolute rest frame. Fortunately nature provides daily billions of examples of secondary muons which were never accelerated. These muons reach the surface of the Earth only because their "clocks" are running extremely slow. Otherwise they would decay not far from where they were created, high in the atmosphere. {The muons were not part of the oxygen or nitrogen atoms that were struck by the primary cosmic ray. They are "born," like photons, with their velocity, not accelerated.}
OK, that's fine by me. I don't mind you using a transform where time dilates and lengths are unchanged as long as you realize that c is variant under such a transform. If so, then I have no further argument. -Dale
Only if the length is unchanged... So if the length is unchanged, then the length is unchanged. Hmmm...
Your poor pathetic piece of crap. Since you cannot address the scenario I have presented you think you can post a fabricated list of horse crap claims. Well that doesn't cut it. Either address the issue as I have described it or move on. I am not interested in your belief in SRT. I am interested in seeing the conflicts of SRT addressed. Don't come back with there are none because that is ignorance on your part.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Right. That should mean you can address the issue in terms of physics. Since you haven't I suspect you can't. So much for your superior view.
Your name calling is not up to your old style. (I was once a sack full of shit, remember.) What conflict of SRT are you wanting addressed? I have replies better than name calling. I used experimental facts and scientific, logical, arguments, not resembling your assertion that only your only view is correct and that widely accepted SRT is wrong. Do you accept my starting point assumption? Namely: (0)That physics is the same in all inertial frames? If yes, which of the next four numbered steps that logically follow from it do you dispute?
It is quite easy to note that you have declined to address the physics issue I have raised. Hmmm. BTW: You are still a sack of shit. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for the content, Mac. Do you think it's good form to avoid answering questions while hurling presonal abuse? Anyway... I'm interested in what your purpose is in this thread. I thought you were out to prove that length contraction is impossible. (as indicated by your words: "Based on the rest observer velocity, rest line length and rest clock tick rate the moving clock will (can) only accumulate 57 seconds IF the 1m long line remains in 1/1 correspondance between frames.") Is it indeed your goal to prove that length contraction is impossible? Or are you simply aiming to prove that length contraction is not necessary?
Because, Everyone is not as smart as U OR OR OR its your inability to let them understand Relativity.
My pleasure. I think it is not only good form but necessary to reply to false innuendo, lies, distortion and off topic BS. If Billy T has any physics rebuttal to the issue I presented he should make it and stop with the fabricated horse shit. It is impossible. BTW: I should have responded more fully to your scenario even though I find the practice of substituting new scenario's as counter arguements to be less than appropriate responses. Either address the one presented or admit you can't. Any way as to your scenario I fail to see the numbers you quote. Where does 8 come from and how do you get 4 when time dilation is considered. If 8 were justified it would seem that (based on your distorted motion of light) the answer should have been 16. It is interesting how you seem to think you can just ignore the invariance in your example and claim the view is flawed. Surely you understand that you cannot have both time dilation and length contraction in the same calculation. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
