PDA

View Full Version : Lorentz Spatial Contraction in SR



MacM
2006-Mar-15, 10:37 PM
Well here goes. It has been suggested that I proceed in open forum to unleash this can of worms.

It is more difficult in open forum to present a step by step process but lets see if it can be done.

Does anyone disagree that time and distance are physical quantities and that velocity is a derived or calculated mathematical value based on the ratio of those physical entites?

v = d / t

I already recognize that current physics would hold that the "d" and "t" are physical but not of the same value in different frames.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 03:01 AM
OK. With 26 views and no posts I am going to proceed on the assumption that there are no objections to the stated conditions above. If there were then it would be impossible to even hold a discussion on the issue.

Does anybody here disagree that SR advocates that in the rest frame time in the moving frame is dilated?

Further that in the moving frame spatial distance has become contracted?

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 04:28 AM
Good. No posts. I think it is safe to move on to issues which should generate some responses.

Based on the above assumptions do you agree that some bizzar and counter intuitive consequences are caused in physics as a consequence of lorentz contracton?

For example:

1 - If you are traveling away from earth at several light years distance as measured by the pilot of a craft which is going at high relavistic velocity, and you then begin to accelerate, you get closer to earth the faster you receed from it.

2 - While SR prohibits velocities > c when you reach the realm of high relavistic velocity and accelerate the distance to remote cosmic objects becomes reduced by v = >>>> c (many light years/second) according to calculations of observers in such an accelerating craft.

(Note: This recognizes that the superluminal distance changes are outside the light cone and are unobserved due to the creation of event horizons while accelerating but that does not preclude the superluminal dimensional changes from occuring.)

3 - As one approaches v = c the entire 13.7Gly observable universe; including its billions of galaxies and trillions of cosmic objects, condense down into a few cubic feet of volume.

Such mass density and energy density universe seems most implausable.

4 - Physics become full of paradoxes. For example:

Given a scenario where a submarine is submerged quiesantly midway between the surface and the bottom of a deep channel and it begins to move relavistically horizontally (all pragmatic considerations such as hydrodynamics, etc neglected for the gendankin), the captain would see the surrounding water condense (same mass in shorter volume along the vector of motion) increasing its density and forcing the sub therefore to begin to rise.

However, scubadivers observing the sub would see it as shorter and hence more dense and it must sink.

Given the above considerations is it not plausable that these things do not happen and that things are different than we generally advocate?

Once posters have had an opportunity to accept or reject the above I'll move on to the alternative.

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 04:37 AM
However, scubadivers observing the sub would see it as shorter

correct


and hence more dense and it must sink.

Incorrect. You can stop here.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 04:43 AM
correct



Incorrect. You can stop here.

Can you be more specific. If given an object has a given rest mass (I'm not even considering the antiquated relavistic mass issue) and that is measured to exist in an object only 1/2 the length but the same width and height as another object of equal mass, then the forshortened length volume must be twice as dense.

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 05:03 AM
Can you be more specific. If given an object has a given rest mass (I'm not even considering the antiquated relavistic mass issue) and that is measured to exist in an object only 1/2 the length but the same width and height as another object of equal mass, then the forshortened length volume must be twice as dense.

No, you need to get an introduction book on relativity. You have elementary things like length contraction wrong.

Nereid
2006-Mar-16, 09:42 AM
No, you need to get an introduction book on relativity. You have elementary things like length contraction wrong.clj4, would you please take a little time to sketch this out here, as it might be found in such a book?

Note: the reference in the OP ("Well here goes. It has been suggested that I proceed in open forum to unleash this can of worms.") is to this thread: Formal Debate subforum? (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=39279) In the spirit of such a trial, I will confine my contributions to this thread to suggesting that we like to try out MacM's idea.

Tensor
2006-Mar-16, 01:01 PM
Good. No posts. I think it is safe to move on to issues which should generate some responses.

Based on the above assumptions do you agree that some bizzar and counter intuitive consequences are caused in physics as a consequence of lorentz contracton?

For example:

1 - If you are traveling away from earth at several light years distance as measured by the pilot of a craft which is going at high relavistic velocity, and you then begin to accelerate, you get closer to earth the faster you receed from it.

Note the bolded word. You are now in the realm of GR, not SR.




2 - While SR prohibits velocities > c when you reach the realm of high relavistic velocity and accelerate the distance to remote cosmic objects becomes reduced by v = >>>> c (many light years/second) according to calculations of observers in such an accelerating craft.

Again, note the bolded word. You are now in the realm of GR, not SR.


(Note: This recognizes that the superluminal distance changes are outside the light cone and are unobserved due to the creation of event horizons while accelerating but that does not preclude the superluminal dimensional changes from occuring.)

3 - As one approaches v = c the entire 13.7Gly observable universe; including its billions of galaxies and trillions of cosmic objects, condense down into a few cubic feet of volume.

Such mass density and energy density universe seems most implausable.

And so? Where exactly does it say anywhere that the universe has to conform to your expectations? The consequences of the two slit experiment and the results of Bell's Theorem in QM seem most implausible, doesn't mean it's wrong.


4 - Physics become full of paradoxes. For example:

Given a scenario where a submarine is submerged quiesantly midway between the surface and the bottom of a deep channel and it begins to move relavistically horizontally (all pragmatic considerations such as hydrodynamics, etc neglected for the gendankin), the captain would see the surrounding water condense (same mass in shorter volume along the vector of motion) increasing its density and forcing the sub therefore to begin to rise.

However, scubadivers observing the sub would see it as shorter and hence more dense and it must sink.

The problem is you have specifically declined to think about Hydrodynamics. And as such, you trying to fit SR into a situation where it doesn't work. Why are you then suprised that it doesn't? The problem here is more suble. Bouyancy (whether the sub rises or sinks) is a function of Gravity. It has to be taken into account, which of course leaves SR and moves on to GR.


Given the above considerations is it not plausable that these things do not happen and that things are different than we generally advocate?

Well, I'm not sure they are a given. You haven't provided any of the math to show the situations you claim are in fact what the math actually says. So far, it's just words that you want us to take on your say so.

Actually, the submarine thing has been worked on and solved. Here (http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030728/full/030728-3.html) is an article from Nature (unfortunately, you'll have to subscribe to get it, since it's now archived)

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 06:07 PM
In the interest of breviety I will conceed the Submarine scenario but contest the claims that the other aspects cited are GR rather than SR concerns.

I know acceleration is not normally considered in SR but it is a matter of convience not of correctness.

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/specialrelativity/Accelerated.html

http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gleeson/NotesChapter13.pdf

The light cone becomes curved in flat space.

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 06:19 PM
In the interest of breviety I will conceed the Submarine scenario but contest the claims that the other aspects cited are GR rather than SR concerns.

I know acceleration is not normally considered in SR but it is a matter of convience not of correctness.

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/specialrelativity/Accelerated.html

http://www.ph.utexas.edu/~gleeson/NotesChapter13.pdf

The light cone becomes curved in flat space.

You are new to this forum. The rules are that if you advance an idea , you need to defend it with your own words, not with link spamming.

Please do so.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 07:22 PM
You are new to this forum. The rules are that if you advance an idea , you need to defend it with your own words, not with link spamming.

Please do so.

Sorry but I am merely supporting the rebuttal to the false claim that these issues are GR and not SR. The link is to the appropriate mathematics showing that is fact.

Now if it is this forums contention that this is not adequate to proceed then I'm done here and I suggest it supports my contentions in the Formal Debate thread.

I believe the rules also say you should answer questions and a moderator above suggested you do so. So ditto on folloiwng rules.

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 07:45 PM
...then the forshortened length volume must be twice as dense.


No, this is not correct. Objects moving at very high speeds do not contract (this was the old FitzGerald hypothesis, long refuted, they appear contracted when viewed from other frames of reference (this is the Lorentz, actually Einstein acception of the term).
To make matters even worse, the contraction in terms of appearance is not even a contraction in the pure sense, it is a rotation. see the Terrell-Penrose effect here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terrell-Penrose_Effect

.and here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

Grey
2006-Mar-16, 08:35 PM
I know acceleration is not normally considered in SR but it is a matter of convience not of correctness.That depends. If you want to consider an accelerating object, you can do that easily in special relativity by using a series of individually inertial reference frames (and generally then taking the limit as the number of such frames approaches infinity while the relative velocity between each frame and its successor goes to zero). However, if you wish to consider an accelerating object to be stationary within a single reference frame, that is a problem that requires general relativity. You'll need to consider the object to be within a constant gravitational field to account for the "apparent" inertial forces.

Sam5
2006-Mar-16, 08:37 PM
I know acceleration is not normally considered in SR but it is a matter of convience not of correctness.


Einstein wrote in several pre-1918 books and papers that acceleration is not considered in SR. This caused the SR paper to contain some errors. People have been patching SR up with GR acceleration solutions for the past hundred years. Einstein started using GR to patch up the errors in SR in 1918.

Grey
2006-Mar-16, 08:41 PM
Hmm, this should be interesting. Maybe the debate format with just two participants would be entertaining, if those two were people that both thought special relativity was incorrect, but for directly opposed reasons... ;)

Tensor
2006-Mar-16, 08:54 PM
Hmm, this should be interesting. Maybe the debate format with just two participants would be entertaining, if those two were people that both thought special relativity was incorrect, but for directly opposed reasons... ;)

Giggle :whistle:

Sam5
2006-Mar-16, 09:18 PM
Hmm, this should be interesting. Maybe the debate format with just two participants would be entertaining, if those two were people that both thought special relativity was incorrect, but for directly opposed reasons... ;)

Hi Grey,

I can’t believe how few people have bothered to look up the original source-book of Einstein’s SR theory, which is Lorentz’s 1895 book. This is an extremely rare book, written in German by Lorentz. It was never translated into English, and it’s almost impossible to find a used copy of the original today. However, Elibron has a photo copy of the complete book here:

http://www.elibron.com/english/other/item_detail.phtml?msg_id=10017783

In Section 90 Lorentz explains that the length contraction is caused by the motion of bodies through the “ether”. This is because a physical force is placed on the body just as a physical force is placed on a balloon moving rapidly through the wind (such as if you hold an inflated balloon outside of a moving car). Einstein removed the “ether” in his 1905 paper and, therefore, he removed the physical forces that caused objects to contract when they move.

Facing objections from his critics, who pointed out to Einstein that just “relative motion” alone could not cause any object to physically contract, he wrote in a 1907 paper one of his first patches to his original 1905 SR theory:

“From this it follows that the laws of geometry determine the possible arrangements of rigid bodies in non-accelerated motion always in the same way, independent of their common state of motion. Assertions about the shape of a body in non-accelerated motion therefore have a direct meaning. The shape of a body in the sense indicated we will call its ‘geometric shape.’ The latter obviously does not depend on the state of motion of a reference system.”

This quote is from “On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn From it”, A. Einstein, 1907.

In 1904 Lorentz wrote, “The first example of this kind is Michelson’s well-known interference experiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through the ether.”

Einstein later came to believe that gravitational fields might play a role as a kind of “ether”, and that has been discussed on other threads on this board.

Sam

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 09:37 PM
No, this is not correct. Objects moving at very high speeds do not contract (this was the old FitzGerald hypothesis, long refuted, they appear contracted when viewed from other frames of reference (this is the Lorentz, actually Einstein acception of the term).
To make matters even worse, the contraction in terms of appearance is not even a contraction in the pure sense, it is a rotation. see the Terrell-Penrose effect here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terrell-Penrose_Effect

.and here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html

Thanks for the links but I am familiar with the Terrell-Penrose rotation concept. Also had you responded to my initial questions we would have determined that we are in agreement that spatial contraction is not a physical reality.

However, having said that I do not believe the TR rotation has become universally accepted and length contraction is still very much advocated by physicists.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 09:39 PM
That depends. If you want to consider an accelerating object, you can do that easily in special relativity by using a series of individually inertial reference frames (and generally then taking the limit as the number of such frames approaches infinity while the relative velocity between each frame and its successor goes to zero). However, if you wish to consider an accelerating object to be stationary within a single reference frame, that is a problem that requires general relativity. You'll need to consider the object to be within a constant gravitational field to account for the "apparent" inertial forces.

Correct with the limit taken toward zero each instant in time the object has a specific velocity and SR can in fact be applied to cases of acceleration as indicated in the mathematical links.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 09:40 PM
Hmm, this should be interesting. Maybe the debate format with just two participants would be entertaining, if those two were people that both thought special relativity was incorrect, but for directly opposed reasons... ;)

Good point.:D

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 09:49 PM
In 1904 Lorentz wrote, “The first example of this kind is Michelson’s well-known interference experiment, the negative result of which has led Fitzgerald and myself to the conclusion that the dimensions of solid bodies are slightly altered by their motion through the ether.”

It is interesting that they refer to the experiments as "Negative" results and also claim "Slightly" altered geometry.

Particularily in view of the fact that M&M plus many other subsequent simular experiments all had repeatable minor dinural data deviations.


Einstein later came to believe that gravitational fields might play a role as a kind of “ether”, and that has been discussed on other threads on this board.

Sam

In an Einstein speach he repeated three time that SR did not prove the absence of an ether, that it merely showed it is not required.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 10:11 PM
Since no other relevant objections have been raised I will continue.

My view is based on the fact that in 100 years there has been no observational or emperical data directly demonstrating spatial length contraction.

It infact appears to be a mere AD HOC artifact to form a consistant mathematical system.

While the concept of +v and -v being recipocally equal is quite logical and perhaps correct in some universal absolute sense, there is actually no requirement that that be the case since it is a calculated value of ratios of physical identities. v = d / t.

What is known in the rest frame is d, t and now emperically t' of the moving frame. It is an unjustified mathematrical assumption to take the calculated velocity of the rest frame and impose it on the moving frame, then ignore the emperically demonstrated dilated tick rate of the clock of the moving frame used to time the trip and force a change in physical dimension.

It is actually more logical to assume that the moving frame will calculate a higher velocity since his clock is ticking more slowly. This becomes more apparent if you first specifiy that the course over which the moving observer is travelling is marked by meter markers.

It goes without question that those markers will be passing the moving observer at a higher rate than is seen by the rest frame. It can be seen that spatial contraction only occurs because it is being arbitrarily dictated. If you force the issue and claim the meter markers are spatially contracted then the timing of the trip no longer holds and a mathematical conflict occurs.

When one does not ignore the known physical dilated tick rate of the moving clock being used to time the trip, it can be seen that the trip time is fully accounted for by the dilated clock condition and there is no possible room for physical spatial length contraction.

The issues of superluminal dimensional change were raised above because it is generally believed that FTL is prohibited by SR. The reality is that SR only prohibits the observation of FTL motion and not the motion itself. In my alternative view being advocated here it also produces superluminal velocities.

However, in this view the absurdities of getting closer the faster you receed, 1 - 3 above, etc., do not occur. The affect is time dilation of the acclerated observer and in him moving through the vastness of the uiverse at superluminal speeds by his clock, even though event horizons may preclude the superluminal observation. The universe remains unaffected and his veloicty remains subluminal in the view of a resting observer.

The mathematical consistancy is not lost. Only physical absurdities are lost.

Now have fun shredding my view. :doh:

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 10:40 PM
Thanks for the links but I am familiar with the Terrell-Penrose rotation concept. Also had you responded to my initial questions we would have determined that we are in agreement that spatial contraction is not a physical reality.

However, having said that I do not believe the TR rotation has become universally accepted and length contraction is still very much advocated by physicists.

Ha,ha

You miss (intentionally) the main point: ...what I told you about the submarine.
It DOESN'T get denser. Is that clear?

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 10:42 PM
Since no other relevant objections have been raised I will continue.

Don't delude yourself. We have rejected your views. Just because you choose to pretend that you don't see the objections, it doesn't mean that we have not (vigurously) objected.

Grey
2006-Mar-16, 10:50 PM
It is actually more logical to assume that the moving frame will calculate a higher velocity since his clock is ticking more slowly. This becomes more apparent if you first specifiy that the course over which the moving observer is travelling is marked by meter markers.This would be assuming that there's a meaningful way to distinguish a "moving" frame from a "resting" frame. Do you propose that there is such a thing as absolutely at rest?


However, in this view the absurdities of getting closer the faster you receed, 1 - 3 above, etc., do not occur.You've asserted these but not shown them; I'd actually be interested in seeing the math for points 1 and 2 worked out. I think that you're very likely doing exactly what I said you couldn't, and treating a non-inertial reference frame as though it were inertial, and expecting that special relativity should hold for such observers. Here (http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twin2.htm)'s a pretty good example of how to handle such a reference frame, in one of the classic thought experiments about special relativity.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 10:54 PM
Ha,ha

You miss (intentionally) the main point: ...what I told you about the submarine.
It DOESN'T get denser. Is that clear?

The primary point was that it is not an issue worth arguing about so I dropped it to proceed.

MacM
2006-Mar-16, 10:59 PM
Don't delude yourself. We have rejected your views. Just because you choose to pretend that you don't see the objections, it doesn't mean that we have not (vigurously) objected.

Don't delude yourself. Your rejection of my views does not make them invalid. Just because you choose to pretend that your view superceeds mine doesn't make it so.


.... it doesn't mean that we have not (vigurously) objected

The vigor of your objections has no bearing what-so-ever on their validity or invalidity. They simply are not views which have overturned the basic assertions of SR, at least not in the phsyics world. I can't speak as to the primary views of the astronomy world.

It is an alternative concept not a replacement concept.

clj4
2006-Mar-16, 11:45 PM
The primary point was that it is not an issue worth arguing about so I dropped it to proceed.

excellent , so your points 1-4 in post #3 go away.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 12:58 AM
This would be assuming that there's a meaningful way to distinguish a "moving" frame from a "resting" frame. Do you propose that there is such a thing as absolutely at rest?

Experiment and study about a decade ago showed that the absolute velocity of a muon to the CMB was the correct figure to use in time dilation calculation. NOT the relative velocity to the earth.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

There are other simular tests and data around inforring an absolute frame. However, it certainly hasn't been proven, nor is it commonly accepted.


You've asserted these but not shown them; I'd actually be interested in seeing the math for points 1 and 2 worked out.

Actually it has been worked out (by a physicst using SR, not my me).

However, unfortunately my computer crashed last night and I have been communicating today and now via the office. I lost everything and will have to reformat.

So my ability to respond has just been severly hampered.

NOTE TO OTHERS AS WELL. DON'T FEEL YOU ARE BEING IGNORED. IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL DAYS BEFORE I AM FULLY BACK ON LINE.


Here's a pretty good example of how to handle such a reference frame, in one of the classic thought experiments about special relativity.

Incorrect. It is a lilnk to the "Twins" paradox but is not the correct mechanisim to use in my scenario's. SR is used as per the links I provided.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 12:59 AM
excellent , so your points 1-4 in post #3 go away.

Let me suggest only that your read more slowly. I dropped the submarine anadoteal scenario but I provided information that the assertion that the circumstances were GR and not SR was FALSE.


1 - 3 STAND.

clj4
2006-Mar-17, 01:06 AM
Let me suggest only that your read more slowly. I dropped the submarine anadoteal scenario but I provided information that the assertion that the circumstances were GR and not SR was FALSE.


1 - 3 STAND.

Huh?

How does 3 stand? Especially after what I told you about density?


3 - As one approaches v = c the entire 13.7Gly observable universe; including its billions of galaxies and trillions of cosmic objects, condense down into a few cubic feet of volume.

Such mass density and energy density universe seems most implausable.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 06:38 AM
Huh?

How does 3 stand? Especially after what I told you about density?

I guess it comes down to do I believe you, or books I HAVE read or other physicists with which I have discussed these issues.

The bottom line seem that you are merely intent on casting fishing expeditions to see what sticks.

Perhaps if you provided any substance to your comments and not simply make fiat statements one could assess them.

For example it isn't even laughable to infer that TP rotation overturned SR.

clj4
2006-Mar-17, 07:14 AM
I guess it comes down to do I believe you, or books I HAVE read or other physicists with which I have discussed these issues.

The bottom line seem that you are merely intent on casting fishing expeditions to see what sticks.

Perhaps if you provided any substance to your comments and not simply make fiat statements one could assess them.

For example it isn't even laughable to infer that TP rotation overturned SR.

We see all kinds on this forum. And believe me , replacing answers to direct questions with personal attacks will ensure that your stay is very short.

Now a direct question:

If you conceded point 4 , please explain to us how does point 3 stand? In your own words, don't start telling us about all the famous physicists that you've talked to.

And a second one:


For example it isn't even laughable to infer that TP rotation overturned SR.

Can you elaborate? Do you think that the Twins Paradox (TP) has "overturned SR"?
Please try to prove it. (note the "try")

Tensor
2006-Mar-17, 12:39 PM
I guess it comes down to do I believe you, or books I HAVE read or other physicists with which I have discussed these issues.


Well, both myself and Grey have mention we would like to see the math. I guess it comes down to, do I believe you, or the equations I have worked with. Since you have yet to provide any of the math to back up what you have asserted, you have yet to show your points are valid, and not just some misunderstanding of relativity.

As far as whether SR can handle accelerations or gravity. While it can, it's not a strait forward use of SR (as Grey has pointed out). What you don't seem to realize (maybe you do, I can't tell from your posting) is that in cases where you can take the limit of an infinite number of SR frames, it will still give you the same answer as using GR.

BTW, I'm asking specifically for the math describing your points 1-2, not some generalized link. The links you have provided, so far, are not the math in your points. I understand about the computer crash (mine recently died completely), and will wait for your posting for that math.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 02:08 PM
We see all kinds on this forum. And believe me , replacing answers to direct questions with personal attacks will ensure that your stay is very short.

As I have indicated I am severly hampered time access wise and in need of replacing resources but I will try to respond as soon as I can.

In the interim I want to make a couple of points.

I do not believe I have made any personal attacks. You have said several times in several ways that you do not believe me. I have only inferred that I question the veracity or applicability of your comments in that they are inconsitant with that which I am accustomed to hearing from physicsts that I do know.

This is further enhanced by the fact that if you had specific falsifying information it would appear more efficient and more appropriate that it merely be posted than has a system where a thread originator must disproved all sorts of claims only casually being made against his proposal.


Can you elaborate? Do you think that the Twins Paradox (TP) has "overturned SR"?
Please try to prove it. (note the "try")

Silly. SR is a subset of GR. GR however, is an origin of solution for the TP.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 02:17 PM
As far as whether SR can handle accelerations or gravity. While it can, it's not a strait forward use of SR (as Grey has pointed out). What you don't seem to realize (maybe you do, I can't tell from your posting) is that in cases where you can take the limit of an infinite number of SR frames, it will still give you the same answer as using GR.

Again fair enough although I find the policiy here on this issue a bit strange and burdensome but then that that is the way it is.

Of course one gets the same result else one or the other would be false. My point however, would be why some many falsely claimed these issues were GR and not SR in that they can be viewed in either.?


I understand about the computer crash (mine recently died completely), and will wait for your posting for that math.

Thanks. The loss of data is a bummer but I am particularily embarassed by the timing as well. I have my home unit back on line this morning but can only get 16 colors; which is restricting my resolution and the screen material is large and fuzzy.

Grey
2006-Mar-17, 02:44 PM
Experiment and study about a decade ago showed that the absolute velocity of a muon to the CMB was the correct figure to use in time dilation calculation. NOT the relative velocity to the earth.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V03NO2PDF/V03N2MON.PDF

There are other simular tests and data around inforring an absolute frame. However, it certainly hasn't been proven, nor is it commonly accepted.I don't believe the paper demonstrates that conclusively. That is, there would be an expected variation in flux by direction just from the motion through the CMB itself, not from differences in time dilation. Given the huge error range in the data (the author explicitly acknowledges the large error), the effects on time dilation he's claiming are swamped.


Actually it has been worked out (by a physicst using SR, not my me).

However, unfortunately my computer crashed last night and I have been communicating today and now via the office. I lost everything and will have to reformat.Well, it's important to have sound basis for discussion. Shall we simply wait until you're ready to proceed? It's pretty meaningless to just try to discuss this in generalities.


Incorrect. It is a lilnk to the "Twins" paradox but is not the correct mechanisim to use in my scenario's. SR is used as per the links I provided.My point was just that, remember? If you're planning on treating the accelerating spaceship as a single stationary reference frame (and I suspect that you're doing just that, though I can't tell without looking at the math), you have to use exactly this kind of general relativistic calculation. You can do it using pure special relativity, but you have to be pretty careful.


Again fair enough although I find the policiy here on this issue a bit strange and burdensome but then that that is the way it is.To be fair, the expection of support for an argument here may be higher than on some other message boards, but it's much lower than a typical peer reviewed journal. If you have an earth-shaking discovery to change the way physics is done, you'd better be able to support it well enough for this board if you expect to be able to support it well enough for anyone else to take it seriously.

Nereid
2006-Mar-17, 03:12 PM
With 26 views and no posts I am going to proceed on the assumption that there are no objections
Good. No posts. I think it is safe to move on to issues which should generate some responses.Suggestion: allow at least two days for responses to come in (BAUT members are all over the world, and not everyone interested in topics such as this checks in often enough to respond that quickly).

Also, objections may come later; under the ATM rules, you need to defend against (pertinent) challenges whenever they come. If it's a challenge that's already been handled, you can provide a link back to the post(s) where it was so handled (rather than simply write it all out again). This can be tedious, but you can also rely upon the mods to insist that challengers do you the courtesy of reading all relevant parts of a thread before posting.
The rules are that if you advance an idea , you need to defend it with your own wordsThe rules require defence; you may provide links to webpages as part of your defence, but you should say something about the relevance of what's on those linked pages to the case you are defending.

The same applies for challenges.
I believe the rules also say you should answer questions and a moderator above suggested you do so.The rules are that those making ATM claims must answer relevant, direct questions about those claims, in a timely manner.

Of course, if a challenger's questions are unclear, you can ask for clarification.

Where a mod feels discussion would benefit, they may make a request, as may any BAUT member.
unfortunately my computer crashed last night [snip]

So my ability to respond has just been severly hampered.
I understand about the computer crash (mine recently died completely), and will wait for your posting for that math
Shall we simply wait until you're ready to proceed? It's pretty meaningless to just try to discuss this in generalities.This seems like a good idea.

MacM: if you'd like, I can lock this thread, and re-open it when you send me a private message that you're ready to resume (hopefully, with answers to Grey's and Tensor's questions concerning the math).


Finally, a gentle reminder to all: BAUT has a strong policy on civility and decorum. In particular, ad hominem attacks are a violation of the rules, and engaging in these can get you banned, permanently (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=30979). I urge all to concentrate on the content, and to address weaknesses in logic, ignorance of SR or GR, etc with clarity, precision, and above all, in dispassionate language.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 03:12 PM
Well, it's important to have sound basis for discussion. Shall we simply wait until you're ready to proceed? It's pretty meaningless to just try to discuss this in generalities.

I would think that is the case.


You can do it using pure special relativity, but you have to be pretty careful.

Correct again and that is why I was so surprised by the number of objectors claiming otherwise.


If you have an earth-shaking discovery to change the way physics is done, you'd better be able to support it well enough for this board if you expect to be able to support it well enough for anyone else to take it seriously.

That may also be a misconception by members here. I am not asserting that I have such discoveries or expectations. I was merely seeking to introduce an alternative way of looking at the current emperical data which remains mathematically consistant but eliminates the undemonstrated, if not undemonstrateable, length contraction process currently used by relativity.

MacM
2006-Mar-17, 03:32 PM
The rules require defence; you may provide links to webpages as part of your defence, but you should say something about the relevance of what's on those linked pages to the case you are defending.

OK. I thought I had done that when posting links to the description of mathematics for accelerating frames in SR. Persons objected in that I didn't perform the math.

This is not a complaint but an observation. Where you have this large of a group of highly professionals familiar with the subject it seems an unnecessary burden on discussion and is more of a tool to screen out less professionals from general discussions.

I'll be candid. While I have 4 years college, lots of technical experience and achievements, it has been over 40 years since I had and used calculus. So I am very congnizant of the process and generally follow mathematical issues, I don't even pretend to do calculus any more.

Being rusty would be a gross understatement but being ignorant would be an inappropriate lable.


The same applies for challenges.The rules are that those making ATM claims must answer relevant, direct questions about those claims, in a timely manner.

MacM: if you'd like, I can lock this thread, and re-open it when you send me a private message that you're ready to resume (hopefully, with answers to Grey's and Tensor's questions concerning the math).

That appears to be appropriate both due to my computer failure and loss of referance resources as well as my borderline capability to respond in a timely fashion to such mathematical challenges.

Noting once more that they seem to favor disrupting discussion rather than formalizing it. That is it would seem more appropriate for the objector to distinctly lay his objection out than to have this situation where a large number of competent professionals can simply post a variety of challenges requiring one individual to respond with a lot of extensive mathematical rebutal.


I urge all to concentrate on the content, and to address weaknesses in logic, ignorance of SR or GR, etc with clarity, precision, and above all, in dispassionate language.

I believe I have restrained my urges so as to comply with the rules. If not please PM me and give specific examples where I haven't.

Thanks for your input and clarafications.

I actually feel this will likely be the end of this thread and I think that is less educational than it should have been under less adverserial and more cooperative discussion formats.

Grey
2006-Mar-17, 03:38 PM
That may also be a misconception by members here. I am not asserting that I have such discoveries or expectations. I was merely seeking to introduce an alternative way of looking at the current emperical data which remains mathematically consistant but eliminates the undemonstrated, if not undemonstrateable, length contraction process currently used by relativity.Whether you think it's the case or not, if you're proposing an absolute frame of rest and a relativity without length contraction, you're proposing earth-shaking changes to physics.

Grey
2006-Mar-17, 03:50 PM
Noting once more that they seem to favor disrupting discussion rather than formalizing it. That is it would seem more appropriate for the objector to distinctly lay his objection out than to have this situation where a large number of competent professionals can simply post a variety of challenges requiring one individual to respond with a lot of extensive mathematical rebutal.It really shouldn't be that extensive, and both Tensor and I were asking for the same clarification. You've made a couple statements in your first post, and, as you agreed, it's quite difficult to discuss those statements in detail (and in particular, to see if there are errors in them), without seeing those statements with the mathematical support behind them.

Nereid
2006-Mar-17, 04:42 PM
And hopefully clarifying a few things.
OK. I thought I had done that when posting links to the description of mathematics for accelerating frames in SR. Persons objected in that I didn't perform the math.First, none of my 'moderation' comments were intended to be directed at any person, or even any particular post.

I was trying merely to clarify 'the rules'.

If I felt that the thread, or any post, had gone off the rails, I'd've intervened much earlier.
This is not a complaint but an observation. Where you have this large of a group of highly professionals familiar with the subject it seems an unnecessary burden on discussion and is more of a tool to screen out less professionals from general discussions.BAUT is what BAUT is, and this ATM section is open to all BAUT members to write posts (as long as they comply with the rules).

No one is required to reveal the extent of their formal education (or lack thereof), whether in physics, or anything. Nor do we require anyone to use (or not use) any mathematics found in standard textbooks. The only requirement, in this ATM section, is that those who make (ATM) claims must defend them against any and all (pertinent) challenges.

If you read through some of the ATM threads, you will see ideas put forward that lack any mathematical, or even observational, basis, as stated explicitly by their proponents. OTOH (on the other hand), there are threads on ideas that are, essentially, nothing but maths, and at least one that is, essentially, purely empirical.

Of course, if an ATMer is challenged to provide (relevant) quantitative or mathematical support for their idea, and cannot do so, then they are expected to answer that they cannot. (Note that this is a general comment, not directed at any ATMer).
I'll be candid. While I have 4 years college, lots of technical experience and achievements, it has been over 40 years since I had and used calculus. So I am very congnizant of the process and generally follow mathematical issues, I don't even pretend to do calculus any more.

Being rusty would be a gross understatement but being ignorant would be an inappropriate lable.
MacM: if you'd like, I can lock this thread, and re-open it when you send me a private message that you're ready to resume (hopefully, with answers to Grey's and Tensor's questions concerning the math).That appears to be appropriate both due to my computer failure and loss of referance resources as well as my borderline capability to respond in a timely fashion to such mathematical challenges.OK.
Noting once more that they seem to favor disrupting discussion rather than formalizing it. That is it would seem more appropriate for the objector to distinctly lay his objection out than to have this situation where a large number of competent professionals can simply post a variety of challenges requiring one individual to respond with a lot of extensive mathematical rebutal.Speaking generally, again, if an ATMer feels the challenges are too broad, they can ask for the scope to be narrowed. Or they can state that they will address it in stages {insert step by step plan}. Or they can parse it and state which parts are relevant (and which not). Or they can say they will answer some parts and not others. And so on.

Note too that 'in a timely fashion' (in the rules) is interpreted quite liberally (by me, at least); typically a week needs to pass before I consider intervening. Further, an ATMer can state approx when they expect to be responding .... and the thread can continue anyway.
I believe I have restrained my urges so as to comply with the rules. If not please PM me and give specific examples where I haven't.You have (otherwise you'd have received PMs from me long since). It's a general reminder, as it's very easy to get carried away (just look at how many warnings and bans there have been). I'd much rather no one ever gets warned but I've noticed that when folk first discover BAUT, after participating in other internet discussion fora, they need some time to get used to how strict BAUT is wrt civility and decorum.
Thanks for your input and clarafications.

I actually feel this will likely be the end of this thread and I think that is less educational than it should have been under less adverserial and more cooperative discussion formats.This is actually quite a common sentiment, though one rarely expressed as politely and considerately as you have just done (I'd love €1 for every time "freedom of speech!" and "suppressing the next Einstein!" and similar are used). And we've discussed this before, several times (I'll dig up the links, if no one else beats me).

Tensor
2006-Mar-17, 06:55 PM
OK. I thought I had done that when posting links to the description of mathematics for accelerating frames in SR. Persons objected in that I didn't perform the math.

I think, as far as the math goes, both Grey and I (as Grey noted) want the same thing, the math for the specific situations in the points you listed. For those particular points, the links you provided, are not relevant, other than noting that SR might be capable of doing it.

I would also like to clarify my objection to SR being capable of handling acceleration. While SR can handle the individual frames, it is my personal opinion(other's mileage's may vary) that taking the limit of an infinite number of frames is no longer strictly SR. It's what GR does, so why not call it GR? As long as we are both understand what the other is talking about, if we choose to call it different things, I don't think it will matter.


Being rusty would be a gross understatement but being ignorant would be an inappropriate lable.

From what I've seen from your postings, I wouldn't use ignorant in describing you (and I hope you haven't gotten that from my postings). Personally, I just think it's a possible misunderstanding of some of the subtler aspects of SR and the use of taking the limits.


That appears to be appropriate both due to my computer failure and loss of referance resources as well as my borderline capability to respond in a timely fashion to such mathematical challenges.

As Grey and I have both noted, we are willing to be patient as you get your references and computer back up. I fully understand this as I have an illness that sometimes prevents me from posting in threads where study is needed and I am also involved in local theatre (and in rehearsal right now) which also limits my posting time. If you need time to get everything straight, you can always take the time and let us know when you are ready.


Noting once more that they seem to favor disrupting discussion rather than formalizing it. That is it would seem more appropriate for the objector to distinctly lay his objection out than to have this situation where a large number of competent professionals can simply post a variety of challenges requiring one individual to respond with a lot of extensive mathematical rebutal.

I'm not sure why you would think we are disrupting the discussion by asking for clarification. We can't really object until we see the calculations that you are using to draw what we (well I shouldn't speak for Grey here) think is a misunderstanding. If the math is available, we could probably distinctly lay out our objections.


I believe I have restrained my urges so as to comply with the rules. If not please PM me and give specific examples where I haven't.

IMO, you've been fine.


I actually feel this will likely be the end of this thread and I think that is less educational than it should have been under less adverserial and more cooperative discussion formats.

Again, I'm not sure why you think our asking for the math to clarify where exactly your claims are coming from is adversarial. As far as the education part, if either the math shows your claims are in error (you learn something) or the claims are valid (we learn something), isn't that educational?

If it is the end of the thread, I would still hope you stick around. Your postings indicate (to me at least) intelligence, thoughtfulness, and you have been polite. I think you would be an asset to the board.

Nereid
2006-Mar-17, 07:01 PM
Per MacM's request, thread temporarily locked (to be re-opened when he PMs me to tell me he's ready to resume discussion).