3

Who's familiar with the conversion? - "In 15 years' ship-time they could reach Andromeda

maxdancona

2
Sat 14 Nov, 2015 11:33 pm
@layman,
You don't understand that correctly.

The clock hypothesis states that the rate of a clock doesn't depend on an acceleration. That is completely different than the issue of inertial vs. non-inertial frames of reference.

These are two different topics.

0 Replies

layman

0
Sat 14 Nov, 2015 11:41 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
We would both be right.

OK. Let's see where that answer takes us, eh?

1. The Lorentz transformations tell you that the "moving" clock runs slower.
2. The guy on earth is "right" when he says he is not moving. That means the ship is the one moving. That means the ship's clock runs slow.
3. The guy on the ship is "right" when he says he is not moving. That means the earth is the one moving. That means the earth's clock runs slow.
4. They are BOTH right.

So, then, we must conclude that each clock "really does" run slower than the other, eh?

Even Einstein said such a conclusion would be absurd. He's the one, after all, that said a travelling clock would return slowing less time elapsed.

That means the earth clock was RIGHT when he said the travelling clock rans slower. But that ALSO MEANS that the travelling clock would be WRONG if it tried to claim the earth clock ran slower.

THEREFORE, BOTH CANNOT BE RIGHT (according to Einstein and any other physicist worth his salt--not to even mention elementary logic).

Want to try a different answer?

Once again, the LT says the moving clock runs slower. So the first trick is to find out which one is moving, eh?
maxdancona

3
Sat 14 Nov, 2015 11:59 pm
@layman,
Layman,

1) For you to understand the math, you have to take the time to learn the math. Sorry, but you can't possibly know enough to disprove a theory without taking the time to learn enough math to understand the theory.

2) This isn't just mathematics. This has been tested multiple times in the real world.

This is the reality that we have observed. We have seen that two atomic clocks will return from an experiment having experienced different amounts of time. When we actually did the experiments, the mathematics turned out to predict very accurately what would happen.

The mathematics were correct. Your objections are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

You should also read about the pi-meson studies that proved the same mathematical principles to correctly describe reality in a very different form of experiment.
layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:09 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
2) This isn't just mathematics. This has been tested multiple times in the real world.

Yeah,yeah, yeah.

I have suggested, on multiple occasions, that you do a little research about ALTERNATE theories of relative motion (e.g, those assuming absolute simultaneity rather than relative simultaneity--as SR does). IF you ever did that, which you NEVER will, then you would find out that other theories are also confirmed by all those very same experiments.

But you won't inform yourself, and you keep claiming that ONLY special relativity is confirmed.

Not much anyone can do with WILFULL ignorance, eh?
layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:15 am
@layman,
Here, I'll spoonfeed your wilfully ignorant ass, just this once:

Quote:
Test theories of special relativity give a mathematical framework for analyzing results of experiments to verify special relativity....Test theories predicting different experimental results from Einstein's special relativity, are Robertson's test theory (1949),[1] and the Mansouri–Sexl theory (1977)[2] which is equivalent to Robertson's theory.[3][4][5][6][7] Another, more extensive model is the Standard-Model Extension, which also includes the standard model and general relativity..

Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity

maxdancona

2
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:19 am
@layman,
Would you like to link to what you think is the most compelling alternate theory, and then I can try to explain the experiment that debunks it?

Relativity is accepted because it accurately predicts and explains how things work in the real world in experiment after experiment. I believe it is the only experiment that can do this.

But let's try. Give me an "alternate" theory that can even explain the results of the Michelson-Morley (an early experiment that led to the theory of relativity).

I am willing to be informed. But, any alternate theory has to explain the results of all fo the experiments... including the fact that clocks moving relative to the earth have been shown to experience less time than clocks stationary relative to the earth.

Show me what alternate theory you have that explains what really happens.
0 Replies

maxdancona

2
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:21 am
@layman,
Quote:
Here, I'll spoonfeed your wilfully ignorant ass

That's funny from someone who refused to take any math classes after what... middle school?
layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:28 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
That's funny from someone who refused to take any math classes after what... middle school?

You'll never get it, will you, Max? These theories are NOT based on math. They are based on fundamental premises about the nature of the world, without a scrap of math. Those premises are stated in words, not mathematical formulas.

It is only AFTER the theory is proposed that math might come in to fully explore the implications of the theory (assuming that the premises are absolutely true). The math doesn't, and can't, prove the theory to be true or false. It merely ASSUMES the truth.
maxdancona

3
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:33 am
@layman,
Really Layman?

You offered the "Mansouri–Sexl theory" as an alternate theory. It isn't really an alternate theory... it is a test theory designed to provide a framework for evaluating experiments. It's basically this...

Here is the link. As you can read here it does not explain all experiments, it is designed as a reference not as a alternate to special relativity. You clearly googled it and posted it without understanding it at all.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2005-5&page=articlesu9.html

As you can see it is all mathematics.
layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:40 am
@layman,
I notice that you never did answer a simple question I asked you a long time ago. We both agreed that \$1 times 10 equals \$10. I then asked you if that told you anything, anything at all, about how much money I had in the bank.

Does it?
layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:41 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
You offered the "Mansouri–Sexl theory" as an alternate theory. It isn't really an alternate theory..

You've just proved you can't read words, Max. Here it is again. READ it:
Quote:

Test theories of special relativity give a mathematical framework for analyzing results of experiments to verify special relativity....Test theories predicting different experimental results from Einstein's special relativity, are Robertson's test theory (1949),[1] and the Mansouri–Sexl theory (1977)[2] which is equivalent to Robertson's theory.[3][4][5][6][7] Another, more extensive model is the Standard-Model Extension, which also includes the standard model and general relativity..

Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.
maxdancona

2
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:42 am
@layman,
I already answered this a few pages ago. I then explained why this line of reasoning is crazy by giving you an example of a problem that isn't solved by simple sums.

You then seemed to drop this... I thought because you realized that this line of reasoning doesn't go anywhere or prove anything.

But I will play again.

maxdancona

2
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:43 am
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
You offered the "Mansouri–Sexl theory" as an alternate theory. It isn't really an alternate theory..

You've just proved you can't read words, Max.

One of us can't. The term "alternate theory" was your term (although you wrote it in all caps). No one else is using that term.
layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:51 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:

Really!? Do tell. Exactly what does it tell you about how much money I have in the bank, and how does it tell you that?
0 Replies

layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:56 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
One of us can't. The term "alternate theory" was your term (although you wrote it in all caps). No one else is using that term.

Once again showing that you don't understand CONCEPTS at all. You only seem to understand numbers.

A test theory IS an alternate theory. If you understood what you were reading, that would be obvious. You don't understand the concept, so you think different words MUST mean different things.

You don't understand the CONCEPTS behind the theories either. That has always been obvious. You think the concepts are the numbers, because that's the only part you understand.

Tell me, Max, in words, not numbers: What is the difference between a theory assuming relative simultaneity and one assuming absolute simultaneity? You DON'T need numbers to explain it. Can you?
maxdancona

3
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 12:58 am
@layman,
The problem is that you are googling stuff to prove you are right... and you are then enthusiastically posting what you find, on wikipedia, out of context as if this somehow vindicates you.

But it doesn't. All it does is proves that you don't know what you are talking about. MSR is a highly mathematical framework (which you don't understand) with parameterization (which you don't understand).

I could try to explain how how these test theories work... honestly this stuff is a little above my education. But I have at 7 of college Physics more than you do, and I do understand basically the math here. But anyway, these test theories don't claim to disprove Special Relativity. Quite the contrary, the math of MSR doesn't even question the mathematics that you are discarding out of hand.

But the fact is that this is mathematics. Even the googled sources that you are linking are mathematics. And, you don't know what you are talking about.

The biggest indisputable point is that the very thing you say can't happen, the Twin Paradox, has been observed happening as predicted by Special Relativity.
maxdancona

2
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:00 am
@layman,
Quote:
Howard Percy Robertson (1949) extended the Lorentz transformation by adding additional parameters.[2] He assumed a preferred frame of reference, in which the one-way speed of light is isotropic, and since he applied Poincaré-Einstein synchronization in all relatively moving frames, the one-way speed of light is by definition also isotropic in all other frames. However, the two-way speed of light in those moving frames is anisotropic, because this speed not only depends on the one-way speed, but also on the additional parameters added by Robertson. On the other hand, in special relativity both the one- and two-way speed of light is isotropic, and because only the two-way speed is accessible to experimental tests, Robertson's theory gives different experimental predictions as special relativity. Thus by evaluating the additional parameters, this theory serves as a framework for assessing possible violations of Lorentz invariance.
0 Replies

layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:08 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:

If I asked you how tall you are, and you then went on an hour-long discourse about a trip you took to Africa once, without saying a word about your height, when you were through you would say you "answered the question."

You give irrelevant responses often, but actual answers very seldom.

Quote:
I then explained why this line of reasoning is crazy by giving you an example of a problem that isn't solved by simple sums.

You "explained" absolutely nothing. You asked a question that could not possibly be answered, due to lack of information given, and left it at that. Just another or your many non sequiturs.

0 Replies

maxdancona

3
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:15 am
Does anyone have any interest in the actual Physics involved in these topics? If anyone wants me to clarify the actual science behind this discussion, please ask. Otherwise I am going leave this discussion now.

0 Replies

layman

0
Sun 15 Nov, 2015 01:16 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
The biggest indisputable point is that the very thing you say can't happen, the Twin Paradox, has been observed happening as predicted by Special Relativity
.

It gives the answer that ONE really does age more than the other. As Feynman explained, this is because one really is moving (relative to the other) and one isn't. It is the moving clock which runs slow.

The "paradox" is that the travelling twin WRONGLY claims that it is the earth twin who is aging slower. That's not a paradox in and of itself, because he's simply wrong, that's all. The paradox comes in when people like you say that "both are right," and that's what SR predicts and tells you.

Now, back to the question pertaining to the article Oris brought up...see next post...

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek