MacM's Closure to a Length Contraction Thread

[worzel]

Originally Posted by MacM

I think we are getting symantical here. I never said simultaneity was not part of relativity. I said it is not part of this test.

SR says that what are simultaneous events are different for different observers moving as in your thought experiment. So if the rel. of sim. is not part of your test then you are not testing SR, and can not conceivably hope to show SR to be inconsistent in doing so.

Look Ma! Pythagoras was wrong! See 2² + 3² = (13^1/₂)² but where's the right angle?

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

Get thee to a library! And if you do, be sure to read a real textbook on special relativity, not some potboiler by Herbert Dingle.

May I suggest "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler?

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Celestial Mechanic

"Pearls" indeed, clj4!

A quick review for MacM. For velocity v we have:

gamma(v) = 1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)

Doppler redshift in frequency for object moving away from observer at velocity v:

redshift(v) = gamma(v)*(1-v/c) = sqrt((1-v/c)/(1+v/c)).

For the velocities in your gedankenexperiment:
gamma(sqrt(3)/2)=2
redshift(sqrt(3)/2) = 2-sqrt(3)
gamma(4*sqrt(3)/7)=7
redshift(4*sqrt(3)/7) = 7-4*sqrt(3).

In my gedankenexperiment:
gamma(3/5)=4/5
redshift(3/5)=1/2
gamma(15/17)=8/17
redshift(15/17)=1/4.

If you cannot understand the calculation and meaning of the quantities above you should not be criticizing special relativity. Get thee to a library! And if you do, be sure to read a real textbook on special relativity, not some potboiler by Herbert Dingle.

Excellent post. It lays out the issue. I have not claimed doppler does not occur. I have claimed that doppler is not part of this test and I specified the gamma function and the standard formula as presented by SR.

t' = t / gamma where "v" is not differentiated as to vector, hence is red and blue shifted blind.

I do not object to your formulisim, I do object to the publication and claims that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2. "v" has vector but "v" is just "v" and speed does not change with vector. Relative velocity does not change with vector.

The basic formula of SR as presented are physically invalid. It would seem that "v" should have some other symbol or notation to differentiate it in the gamma formula such that vector and doppler is imposed and not state t' is merely a function of relative velocity. Mere relative velocity IS NOT consistant with time dilation.

Unless others have further comment I am satisfied with the conclusions of this thread and hope it is of service to others.

[Tensor]

Originally Posted by MacM

I think we are getting symantical here. I never said simultaneity was not part of relativity. I said it is not part of this test.

You can say that all you want, but it is part of the test. Whenever your frames are in relative motion.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Tensor

You can say that all you want, but it is part of the test. Whenever your frames are in relative motion.

You are still missing the point. Please read the balance of my post. The test specified it was based on "Relative Velocity" and the assertion by SR that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 which is blind to doppler shift.

[clj4]

Originally Posted by MacM

Excellent post. It lays out the issue. I have not claimed doppler does not occur. I have claimed that doppler is not part of this test and I specified the gamma function and the standard formula as presented by SR.

t' = t / gamma where "v" is not differentiated as to vector, hence is red and blue shifted blind.

I do not object to your formulisim, I do object to the publication and claims that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2. "v" has vector but "v" is just "v" and speed does not change with vector. Relative velocity does not change with vector.

The basic formula of SR as presented are physically invalid. It would seem that "v" should have some other symbol or notation to differentiate it in the gamma formula such that vector and doppler is imposed and not state t' is merely a function of relative velocity. Mere relative velocity IS NOT consistant with time dilation.

Unless others have further comment I am satisfied with the conclusions of this thread and hope it is of service to others.

Go to post 79.
And stay there.

[clj4]

Originally Posted by MacM

You are still missing the point. Please read the balance of my post. The test specified it was based on "Relative Velocity" and the assertion by SR that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 which is blind to doppler shift.

Go to post 79
And stay there.

[clj4]

Originally Posted by MacM

More to the point what possible connection do you make between your post and the fact that accumulated time on a clock is t' = t / gamma*. t' is strictly a function of t, not t1 or t2 or t3 as functions of simultaneity views due to motion of observers 1, 2, or 3 at differing velocities.

The only thing being tested is how many tick does each clock do during an equal test period. The equal test period is to mimic relative velocity.

Relative velocity must be simultaneous to be relative but the only attribute that affects comparative accumulated time on the clock is the equal physical duration of the test.

Red or Blue shift are features of measurement between frames "During Motion". This test is blind and the only thing being done is comparing clocks in a common frame subsequent to a common test period.

*where gamma = 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2

1. Go to post 79
2. Loop on 1

[MacM]

Originally Posted by clj4

1. Go to post 79
2. Loop on 1

Lets try post #95.

Stay there.

[Ken G]

Originally Posted by MacM

Synchronization is irrelevant to the test or its results. The only physics involved is to insure the interval between informational Start/Stop signals is 36,000 seconds according to clock Am to verify the gamma function and the accumulated times.

Again, all you have done is restate your position. It is not wise to simply restate an incorrect position, you must either show that I am incorrect in citing the relevance of synchronization in the incorrect interpretation you give to your results, or you must just take my word for it. If you prefer to carry around falsehoods in your brain for the rest of your life, that is your prerogative. Just don't try to spread the misconceptions.

By the way, you are correct that time dilation is only a part of Doppler shifts. Perhaps understanding this may help you:
A Doppler shift is what you get when you correct simple time-of-flight effects to account for time dilation. This is why the relativistic formula is different from the formula used for the Doppler shifts of sound-- the latter is not corrected for time dilation. As to the role of vectors, the direction of v does affect the time-of-flight piece of the calculation, but not the time dilation piece. The former can give red or blueshifting, the latter is always a redshifted correction. How do you intend to make that correction without time dilation?

[clj4]

Originally Posted by MacM

Lets try post #95.

Stay there.

Loop on 79. Until you get it.
Meaning for the rest of your life

[clj4]

Originally Posted by MacM

You are still missing the point. Please read the balance of my post. The test specified it was based on "Relative Velocity" and the assertion by SR that t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 which is blind to doppler shift.

I don't need to read any of your nonsense. You THOUGHT that you found three errors. Yes, you did: all three belong to ....you!

[MacM]

Originally Posted by Ken G

Again, all you have done is restate your position. It is not wise to simply restate an incorrect position, you must either show that I am incorrect in citing the relevance of synchronization in the incorrect interpretation you give to your results, or you must just take my word for it. If you prefer to carry around falsehoods in your brain for the rest of your life, that is your prerogative. Just don't try to spread the misconceptions.

By the way, you are correct that time dilation is only a part of Doppler shifts. Perhaps understanding this may help you:
A Doppler shift is what you get when you correct simple time-of-flight effects to account for time dilation. This is why the relativistic formula is different from the formula used for the Doppler shifts of sound-- the latter is not corrected for time dilation. As to the role of vectors, the direction of v does affect the time-of-flight piece of the calculation, but not the time dilation piece. The former can give red or blueshifting, the latter is always a redshifted correction. How do you intend to make that correction without time dilation?

As pointed out above I have not argued that doppler shift doesn't occur. I have posted, and I thought clearly indicated, that the test was to demonstrate the falicy of the formula as advocated by virtually all books that t' = t / gamma. Where gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2) and is blind as to doppler shift or the vector of the velocity.

[Celestial Mechanic]

MacM:

Forget about post #79. Go to posts #74, 75 and 76. Read and re-read until you understand. I made them as entertaining and enlightening as I possibly could.

And also read the book recommended by Tensor.

[MacM]

Originally Posted by clj4

I don't need to read any of your nonsense. You THOUGHT that you found three errors. Yes, you did: all three belong to ....you!

The only nonsense here is the effort to take comments out of context. I clearly stated that the thread was based on the claim of t' = t / (1 - v^2/c^2)^1/2 and that neither doppler nor simultaneity were part of the test.

The data I correct as errors used doppler shifted "Observed" velocities and not "Source" velocities. As I stated several times in this thread doppler and simultaneity are illusions of motion measurements. My thread and calculations are based on "Source" velocity and the claim for t' as stated above and the fact that only two issues determine the accumulated time of a clock.

1 - Tick rate and,

2 - Duration of test.

[DOOMMaster]

MacM it is you who do not understand Relativity, not the other posters in this argument. You don't just get to take out the part of Relativity you don't like and substitute in your own version. Synchronization is very important and if not done, you will end up with incorrect results. Celestial Mechanic's #74, #75, and #76 posts are exactly what you need to learn how to do this correctly.

Originally Posted by MacM

The basic formula of SR as presented are physically invalid. It would seem that "v" should have some other symbol or notation to differentiate it in the gamma formula such that vector and doppler is imposed and not state t' is merely a function of relative velocity. Mere relative velocity IS NOT consistant with time dilation.

You claim that the basic forumla is physically invalid, yet all you show to support your position is incorrect assumptions and alteration of equations that are correct before you decided to change them. I'm no expert on Relativity, but I understand it enough to know that what you have done is wrong. As has already been stated, you really need to learn about Relativity from correct sources. Just because you don't like or understand something does not make it invalid.

[Celestial Mechanic]

MacM:

I hope that the following exposition might put an end to your confusion.

Let A and B be two bodies in relative motion with another and velocity v. Consider the inertial reference frame K in which A is at rest and B is moving with velocity +v in the x direction. The world-lines of the two bodies are then:

A(c*t, x) = (c*t, 0)
B(c*t, x) = (c*t, v*t).

Let K' be the inertial reference frame in which B is at rest. Let the coordinates in K' be denoted x' and t'. Let K and K' have the same origin. Then these coordinates are related to t and x of K via a Lorentz transformation:

c*t' = g*c*t - b*g*x
x' = g*x - b*g*c*t.

Here I'm being lazy and writing b for beta and g for gamma. The world-line in K' where B is at rest must have x' = 0 and thus x = b*c*t. Comparison with x=v*t yields v=b*c so that b=v/c.

Now consider this: c*t' = g*c*t-b*g*x everywhere, and x=b*c*t along the world-line of B, so along the world-line of B:

c*t' = g*c*t-g*b²*c*t so
c*t' = (1/g)*c*t.

This is true, but only on the world-line of B.

What is the world-line of A in K'? Along the world-line of A we have x=0 and using the Lorentz transformation we find

c*t' = g*c*t
x' = -b*g*c*t = -b*c*t' = -v*t'.

Thus the world-line of A in K' is A(c*t', x') = (c*t', -v*t'), just as we would expect since we can consider B at rest and A to be moving at -v.

But wait a minute! Here we have c*t' = g*c*t, and before we had c*t' = (1/g)*c*t. What gives?

The expression c*t' = g*c*t is only valid along the world-line of A. c*t' = (1/g)*c*t is only valid along the world-line of B. The only way they can both be valid is if g*c*t = (1/g)*c*t which implies (g - 1/g)*c*t = 0 which means either t (and thus t') equals zero (the intersection of A and B) or g = 1, in which case A and B coincide. There is no contradiction.

[MacM]

I refuse to get into an abusive verbal contest even if some post here have been borderline insults. Most have not so I will continue.

At this juncture I simply want to point out that there has been absolutely no basis to alter the terms of the test or thread. It was designed specifically to KISS (Keep It Simple St....).

I specifically pointed out it omitted doppler and simultaneity.

If relative velocity alters time, then it alters time in a one way test as I have laid it out. There was no basis to add confusion of turn arounds and return trips and to change from "Source" velocities to Doppler "Observed" velocities.

All clocks in the test accumulate time in the redshifted mode. Now if you like post the accumulated times for these clocks using your doppler shifted data.

If you choose to not do so that is fine, I will. At best using measurements altered by illusions of motion will shift the absolute values of the inconsistancies.

Arguements that you cannot break the test into such an increment is to argue that physics do not exist over that part of the relative motion frames. It is a ludricrus and unsupportable position to take.

I have not claimed doppler shift does not occur. I have not claimed relativity of simultaneity does not exist. I have claimed, and do claim, that if you reduce this issue to simple physics, the failure (and it is a failure) becomes apparent.

What you in effect are attempting to do is to alter the arguement to claim that to disprove SR you must use all of SR's manipulations. That is no longer a proper challenge.

That would be no different than me claiming that 10 x 10 = 1,000 instead of 100 because you MUST multiply by k = 10. I am saying this k = 10 is bogus physics.

The only valid arguement to the contrary would be for relativists to actually post emperical data to support the reciprocity asserted by the relative velocity view. Not to regurgitate the theory as its own proof.

At least they should not post in a manner suggesting I have overlooked something or do not understand something, when infact I have pointed out the conditions are irrelevant to the test.

Once again. Please demonstrate that to show (or test) time dilation due to relative velocity requires more than two clocks accumulating time over an equal test period. Or that physics only function if you make a round trip or use one form of velocity over another.

It is your arguement that my test does not demonstrate a conflict. Since you choose to work in "Observed" doppler shifted terms due to measurements in motion post your data for the test as described for the following clocks.

Am = 36,000
Abp =
Acp =

Bm =
Bap =
Bcp =
Bac =

Cm =
Cap =
Cac =
Cbp =

I don't think you dare.

[Nereid]

Originally Posted by MacM

I refuse to get into an abusive verbal contest even if some post here have been borderline insults. Most have not so I will continue.

At this juncture I simply want to point out that there has been absolutely no basis to alter the terms of the test or thread. It was designed specifically to KISS (Keep It Simple St....).

I specifically pointed out it omitted doppler and simultaneity.

And several folk pointed out that if you do that, you are not testing SR.

If relative velocity alters time, then it alters time in a one way test as I have laid it out. There was no basis to add confusion of turn arounds and return trips and to change from "Source" velocities to Doppler "Observed" velocities.

Again, several folk (Celestial Mechanic in particular) have pointed out that the 'turn arounds' and 'return trips' in no way alter what the three observers record.

All clocks in the test accumulate time in the redshifted mode. Now if you like post the accumulated times for these clocks using your doppler shifted data.

But there are only three (independent) clocks!

If you choose to not do so that is fine, I will. At best using measurements altered by illusions of motion will shift the absolute values of the inconsistancies.

Arguements that you cannot break the test into such an increment is to argue that physics do not exist over that part of the relative motion frames. It is a ludricrus and unsupportable position to take.

Again, the (primary) objections to your Gedankenexperiment aren't so much what you say the clocks will record, as that the test - as you have described it - is not a test of SR.

I have not claimed doppler shift does not occur. I have not claimed relativity of simultaneity does not exist. I have claimed, and do claim, that if you reduce this issue to simple physics, the failure (and it is a failure) becomes apparent.

What you in effect are attempting to do is to alter the arguement to claim that to disprove SR you must use all of SR's manipulations. That is no longer a proper challenge.

Let's accept this, for now.

It follows, then, that your Gedankenexperiment has little to do with SR.

It follows that your Gedankenexperiment is a test of "MacM physics".

Perhaps you could lay out for us what the key components of this physics are? That way we can mount challenges that make sense (in terms of what the test you propose is, in fact, a test of).

That would be no different than me claiming that 10 x 10 = 1,000 instead of 100 because you MUST multiply by k = 10. I am saying this k = 10 is bogus physics.

The only valid arguement to the contrary would be for relativists to actually post emperical data to support the reciprocity asserted by the relative velocity view. Not to regurgitate the theory as its own proof.

[snip]

Well, we've been over this before too.

If the test you describe cannot be conducted, with today's technology, then we will need to find another way to test SR or MacM physics, won't we?

SR has been subject to many tests, in the lab, and it has passed all with flying colours.

Can we test MacM physics in the lab too? What experimental setup can you describe for us that is, in principle, feasible with today's technology, that would test MacM physics?

But let me start with the MacM Gedankenexperiment.

If A, B, and C all send out, in all directions, a signal, using light, every second by their own clocks, what will each record (between the MacM start and MacM finish, each according to her own determination of these events)?

For clarity, let's require that each signal each of A, B, and C sends be a faithful image of the dial of the clock (A, B, and C have only one clock each).

What will be the time encoded in the last signal A sends? B? C?

What will be the time encoded in the last signal that A receives from B and C? that B receives from A and C? that C receives from A and B?

(for avoidance of doubt, this may serve as the 'videolink' I mentioned in my earlier posts).