1. In addition to the reciprocity and simultaneity failures of Special Relativity I thought I would add a bit in food for thought regarding the Velocity Addition Formula.

Given the case: Rest distance = 200 units.

1 - A<-----------(100 units) ---------------------->B = 0.866c

The relavistic affects are based on a gamma = 2.000. Meaning that time (clocks) tick at half the rate they did at rest and distance is cut in half.

2 - A<-----~82 units-------------C------~82 units--------->B ; where AC = -0.577c and BC = +0.577c;

AB according to the VAF = 0.866c.

3 - The problem is that relativists like you to see only one aspect of their theory at a time.

(1 above) A<--------------------------------------->B = 100 units
(2 above)..................A<-------------->B = 164 units

Both of course are 0.866c. Further in case 2 the actual situation is not so simple. You cannot disregard that A still sees C as moving at 0.577c which means that A only sees B moving away from C at 0.289c.

Distance from AC is therefore 0.8167 the rest distance (or time) and the affects at 0.289c is 0.9573.

A<---------~82 units--------------C---------~96 units------------->B = 178 units.

But the distance AB is less than A sees for A to C + C to B.

A<---------------100 units---------------->B

Now if I must travel less distance (0.5) and my clock ticks slower (0.5), then that would mean during the trip my clock would accumulate 0.25 as much time.

Hmmmm.

2.

3. MacM's post is either confused or deliberately misleading.

Originally Posted by MacM
In addition to the reciprocity and simultaneity failures of Special Relativity I thought I would add a bit in food for thought regarding the Velocity Addition Formula.

Given the case: Rest distance = 200 units.

1 - A<-----------(100 units) ---------------------->B = 0.866c
Which frame is this in? I assume it is A's frame, with A at rest watching B travelling at 0.866c (gamma = 2). Who's "rest distance" is 200 units? I assume it is the distance from A to B as measured by A. In that case, the distance as measured by B is 100 units.

The diagram is misleading, of course, since it mixes frames. If the 100 units is B's measurement, then the velocity of A should be 0.866 c to the left, and the velocity of B should be zero.

2 - A<-----~82 units-------------C------~82 units--------->B ; where AC = -0.577c and BC = +0.577c;

AB according to the VAF = 0.866c.
Don't know what the "VAF" is. I suppose it is C's reference frame.

AC and BC are presumably velocities of A and B as seen by C. Again, the distances on the diagram are wrong, because of the mixing of frames.

The rest of MacM's post is irrelevant, due to these basic mistakes.

Try again, MacM, and this time be more careful to stick to one frame at a time.

4. Originally Posted by James R
MacM's post is either confused or deliberately misleading.
And James R's post is deliberately distorting the issue.

MacM wrote:
In addition to the reciprocity and simultaneity failures of Special Relativity I thought I would add a bit in food for thought regarding the Velocity Addition Formula.

Given the case: Rest distance = 200 units.

1 - A<-----------(100 units) ---------------------->B = 0.866c

James R "Which frame is this in? I assume it is A's frame, with A at rest watching B travelling at 0.866c (gamma = 2)".
You can assume correctly but it also is a mute point since I am merely indicating the gamma function = 2.000 at a relative velocity of 0.866c. Perhaps you don't realize that "Relative Velocity" mandates that the results are mutual from either perspective. You really should do a bit more study on these issues.

Who's "rest distance" is 200 units? I assume it is the distance from A to B as measured by A. In that case, the distance as measured by B is 100 units.
Once again both and there is no necessity to specifiy which view since both views are the same. Get it together James R.

The diagram is misleading, of course, since it mixes frames. If the 100 units is B's measurement, then the velocity of A should be 0.866 c to the left, and the velocity of B should be zero.
Others understand that these views are recipocal and that I am speaking in general. It is you that are mixing frames to try and demean my post.

BTW: It isn't working.

Originally Posted by Mac
2 - A<-----~82 units-------------C------~82 units--------->B ; where AC = -0.577c and BC = +0.577c;

AB according to the VAF = 0.866c.
Originally Posted by James R
Don't know what the "VAF" is.
Then perhaps you should look again at the title of this thread and use some common sense for a change.

Originally Posted by James R
I suppose it is C's reference frame.
Then you do not understand relativity. A's view of B is as a missle fired from C.

Originally Posted by James R
AC and BC are presumably velocities of A and B as seen by C. Again, the distances on the diagram are wrong, because of the mixing of frames.
They are correct. It is you that are wrong since you clearly do not understand the VAF applies to A and B not C.

The rest of MacM's post is irrelevant, due to these basic mistakes.
The entire post by James R is irrelevant since he chooses to distort the presentation by changing frames from those inherent in the scenario.

Originally Posted by James R
Try again, MacM, and this time be more careful to stick to one frame at a time.
You try again. Your effort to discredit my post and the issue are a failure.

5. Here's a thought. Why don't you two meet in person and slug it out? Your personal quarrels are of no interest to the rest of us, as they contain no science.

6. Originally Posted by Guitarist
Here's a thought. Why don't you two meet in person and slug it out? Your personal quarrels are of no interest to the rest of us, as they contain no science.
I couldn't agree more. It is up to him to respond with physics without the innuendo attached.

For example he continues to ignore the fact that spatial contraction is only based on changing physical facts. That is it has already been declared that A's clock ticks slower but then disregarding this change and claiming A doesn't notice the change from his perspective distance must have changed.

Time dilation is recorded fact. You cannot arbitrarily ignore the fact that the clock has slowed down so as to then claim distance changed. To do so requires making each clocks tick rate equal and that is against physics.

The fact is A might also believe his velocity is greater rather than distance had changed. Both are perceptions, not physical facts. The only physical fact is the moving clock ticks slower even though the moving obverser can't tell it.

Time dilation accounts for all observations without length contraction. If both time dilation and spatial contraction were physical facts then the affect compounds. i.e. - at 0.866c, qamma = 2.000 if distance were physically only 50% and the clock tick rate were only 50% then the accumulated time for the trip would only be 25%.

It emperically is 50% which means only time dilation is physical since it has been observed and recorded and spatial contraction has not.

7. Guitarist:

Here's a thought. Why don't you two meet in person and slug it out? Your personal quarrels are of no interest to the rest of us, as they contain no science.
What personal quarrel?

I responded to the physics, or lack thereof, in MacM's post. Do you agree with me, or him, or neither? Perhaps you could post your own point of view on the topic, instead of presuming to speak for an anonymous group of readers of this thread known as "the rest of us".

MacM:

Once again both and there is no necessity to specifiy which view since both views are the same.
That is incorrect, as I pointed out previously.

8. Originally Posted by James R
Perhaps you could post your own point of view on the topic, instead of presuming to speak for an anonymous group of readers of this thread known as "the rest of us".

My, my. You are a grumpy fellow. As to my "view" - I have political and religous "views". In matters of science, if a theory is self-consistent and supported by evidence, I feel compelled to accept it. I don't call that a "view". Which is why I consider batting around opinions about the rightness or wrongness of the special theory to be unproductive.

9. Which is why I consider batting around opinions about the rightness or wrongness of the special theory to be unproductive.
Sounds rather dogmatic. Don't you think?

10. Originally Posted by invert_nexus
Sounds rather dogmatic. Don't you think?
Clearly you do. For me, the term "I consider" = "I believe". What's dogmatic about that?

11. Originally Posted by James R

MacM:
Once again both and there is no necessity to specifiy which view since both views are the same.
That is incorrect, as I pointed out previously.
Well, this statement would seem impossible to justify. Reciprocity is inherent and advocated by SRT. To discuss in general terms it is totally appropriate and acceptable to point out the recipocal relationships without specifiying each frame in a redundant manner.

Terms such as 'compelled' and 'believe' are all kinda indicative of a way of thinking that is unchangeable. You also express that you don't have 'views' on relativity.

Anyway, I do see your point that the arguing between James and Mac aren't ever going to be resolved, but it's actually possible for people (other than Mac) to learn from these 'debates'.

Really, the main thing to consider is that if you don't care to read these arguments, find them boring and uninteresting, then don't.

Good idea?

13. Originally Posted by invert_nexus
Good idea?
Yep. I am determined not to fall out with you again, so let's keep it cool.

14. MacM:

To discuss in general terms it is totally appropriate and acceptable to point out the recipocal relationships without specifiying each frame in a redundant manner.
It's never acceptable to get it wrong then deny your mistake even after it has been carefully pointed out for you, MacM. That's intellectually dishonest.

15. Guitarist:

My, my. You are a grumpy fellow.
You don't even know me. It's a bit early to jump to conclusions, wouldn't you say?

As to my "view" - I have political and religous "views". In matters of science, if a theory is self-consistent and supported by evidence, I feel compelled to accept it. I don't call that a "view".
You probably call it "the Truth".

Which is why I consider batting around opinions about the rightness or wrongness of the special theory to be unproductive.
What you seem to be saying is that your views are right, and once you've made up your mind you're unlikely to change your mind, so you won't listen to contrary arguments. Nor will you try to help others through their misconceptions.

Well, each to his own.

16. Yep. I am determined not to fall out with you again, so let's keep it cool.
We cool, Jack.
I'm not really an asshole.
I'm just written that way.

(Anyway. Can't we disagree without 'falling out'?)

17. Originally Posted by James R
MacM:

To discuss in general terms it is totally appropriate and acceptable to point out the recipocal relationships without specifiying each frame in a redundant manner.
It's never acceptable to get it wrong then deny your mistake even after it has been carefully pointed out for you, MacM. That's intellectually dishonest.
Unfortunately there is nothing wrong in my presentation for the purpose it was made. Scream all you want you are wasting your breath and good thread time for others.

18. Originally Posted by James R
You probably call it "the Truth".
As a scientist, I never use that word. "The best eplanation currently available for the observations" is as far as I would go.

What you seem to be saying is that your views are right, and once you've made up your mind you're unlikely to change your mind, so you won't listen to contrary arguments. Nor will you try to help others through their misconceptions.
Look, just to end this silly exchange. If new evidence on a phenomenon becomes available, then I change my theory (my "mind"). If a paradigm shift in the way of looking at the entire class of such phenomena, then I re-analyze data in that light.

But - on a fun-forum, if somebody posts saying "I'm puzzled by this..." or "how come that..." i will, of course try to help if I know how.

But when I see a sustained, irrational, ill-informed and systematic attempt to overturn paradigms for no good reason, I decide I have better things to do with my time. Dogmatic, intolerant, unhelpful, arrogant....? So be it.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement