MacM: What's the difference between "assume" and "accept" in this instance? Where does the acceptance of this postulate come from? Anyway, let's go with it for a moment. Wrong, but let's forget that for now. Ok. So, you're measuring your seconds in the rest frame of the line. You must specify a frame, or your statements will be meaningless, as you know. You're mixing frames, as is normal with you. You want to make marks in the rest frame of the line, while measuring time in the rest frame of the "moving" observer. Anyway, there's no problem if you want to put marks between each set of marks already there, so let's say you've done that. This is true according to your "acceptance" that the moving observer's clock is seen to tick slow by the rest observer. Ok. No. Because you "accepted" that the moving clock ticked slower. Remember? No. Given your own postulates, of time dilation but no length contraction, the moving observer would say he travelled faster than the rest observer. In your pretend universe, velocities aren't reciprocal. That's not the case in our real universe, of course, but for the sake of argument, we'll stick with your imaginary one for now. Yes. Congratulations. You have followed your own set of assumptions through to its logical conclusion. As I pointed out, if you now want to connect your imagination to the real world, you'll need to somehow reconcile the reciprocity of velocities in the real world with the fact that velocities are observer dependent in MacM fantasyland. Why are you suddenly talking about SRT now?
I reject it. I think that was duck and weave 12. I told you why that reply was silly: Namely all detectors look at different photons, even your two eyes. What a silly duck and weave. "Different photons" Hee, hee heee - my sides hurt from laughing.
Thanks James for the detailed review. There is so much internal inconsistency in MacM's fantasyland that I gave up on trying to understand his nonsense scenario.
And if you don't you are rejecting the very theory you claim to support. What I have said is you want to claim time dilation but then ignore it in another frame and rename the affect of motion as length contraction. It is one or the other it is not either or choice.
You can spread your bullshit all you want but you are ignoring certain physical facts. Rest Frame: Length 100 cm (l) Scale 300,000,000/1 Observed velocity of moving frame. (v) = 0.866c Time of moving frame (t) = 115 seconds. Observed ticks of moving frame by rest frame 1 / 1.732 cm (tr) = 0.5. That equates to the moving frame seeing distance remaining invariant and his velocity as 1.732c. Any other arguement is BS.
Don't continue to be a dumb ass on purpose. It is well understood what I mean by different photons. The photon that triggers the explosion in the trains rest frame does not exist to be viewed at all in the embankment rest frame. There is reltive veloicty between frames. The photons that move at 'c' are always photons that exist only to the rest frame in which they are created and observed.
Not much of an argument, is it? How about this: Empirical data proves length contraction. Wow, that was easy!
Fine ignoring reality doesn't change it. I really care less if you people continue to fool yourselves. I will continue to at least get others to think for themselves.
Agreed. Now that we're done here, would you like to apply your model to the scenario in the Length Contraction thread?
To what avail. You will simply continue to ignore time dilation and claim your same BS. Sad actually.
I'm not ignoring anything (other than your bluster). I granted you that time dilation occurs, which is the physical fact demonstrated. Do you have an actual response to my post? Or am I really going to have to repeat the argument? l = vt. Ok. I assume that this tick rate is calculated via the gamma function? It doesn't matter, though. In the moving frame his velocity is zero. In any case, it simply doesn't hold. If you want to prove that the equation of the length of the line as seen from the moving observers frame l' = v't' has only the solution l'=100cm v'=1.732c t'=57.74 you need more than the time. We have proved, by counterexample, that t' in itself does not lead uniquely to this solution.
Absolutely not. We're just pointing in out that your singling out the one solution to an equation that satisfies your claim of length invariance, ignoring the infinitely many other solutions which don't, and claiming this as a proof, is kind of a bad argument. It's basic algebra, MacM. There's infinitely many solutions. If you want your solution to be unique, you're going to have to prove it. Hell, I'll even set up the math for you (something you are ever reluctant to do): We have two equations for the length of the line. One which holds the rest frame of the line l = vt (where l is the length of the line, v is the speed of the moving observer and t the time it takes for him to traverse the line) and one which holds in the moving observer frame l' = v't' (where l' is the length of the line, v is its speed, and t the time it takes for the line to pass the observer.) Now, we know the following values l = 100cm v = 0.866c t = 115s And that there's the following relationship between t and t' t' = γt Your task is now to prove that l = l' holds.
Strange view. Last time I looked up at night I could swear I saw photons coming from distant stars, not at rest wrt to me. I guess I should take your word for fact that they do not exist in my frame. I.e. I must suffer hallucinations every night. :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Perhaps you are stating that starlight does not move at the speed of light in Earth's frame? If that is what you mean, please tell at what speed does starlight move. Astronomers need to correct the distance to the stars, discard Hubble's law, the Cepheid variable and standard supernova data used to know distance to galaxies, and even worse from your POV, the inverse square law of gravity, which that uniKEF theory supports as it has the "wrong distance" between the bodies interacting gravitationally. (These distances were determined by the false assumption that light speed in vacuum was independent of the source's rest frame.) You really must publish to set the scientific world straight. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PS - I am also now confused about "Doppler broadening of spectral lines". If only photons from the emitting atoms that happen to be in my rest frame exist (for me) why are not all spectral lines very sharp, never Doppler broadened? Can you also publish the correct explanation for the observed, but erroneously explained, Doppler broadening? You are turning over all physics. Perhaps the Noble committe will treat you fairly the next time they meet. I think there is no prize for mathematics, but if there were one, you would also deserve it for showing one can solve for N variables with less than N equations.
Since you choose to ignore the dilated tick rate of a clock used to calculate distance via d = vt the certainly you can distort all sorts jof relationships and ignore every rational physical link between frames. You have made that clear but that isn't logical physics and does not justify relativity as a conclusion.
I have but you choose to ignore the only rational conclusion. In the rest frame it is recorded that the moving clock ticks every 1.732 markers while the rest clock ticks every 0.866 markers. Yet in the rest frame there is but one velocity. Conclusion the moving clock is ticking slower than the rest clock. Now in the moving frame there is absolutely no physics justification to assume the observer sees anything different.
To MacM: I see you have posted twice since my post making fun of your "different photons" and "photons only exist in the rest frame of their source" (with velocity of speed of light?) or if existent in other frames that "light does not travel with the speed of light" - you were not too clear which nonsense you were stating. I doubt if you will be able to explain why / how we see stars when our Earth frame differs so much from the emitting star's rest frame, or explain why the Doppler effect is observed as each of the emitting atoms has a different "rest frame" or any of the other physics facts I used to ridicule your statement: So you either must continue to ignore my response to your foolish ideas or call me names again. If you do the later, please note my sarcastic post is so embarrassing to your position that simply repeating that I am a "piece of crap" is not an adequate reply to my physics arguments. If you really want to rebut my physics arguments, in your usual manor, you must at least call me a "ton of shit" this time. BTW, I plan to ask you which of the two interpretations, both nonsense, you were claming from time to time, by reposting this so, if you are lacking any physic support for your claim above, just go ahead and call me a "ton of shit" now.
