New is Relativity for Real scenario

By RussT Date 2010-02-10 11:51

Okay, so you are all somehow convinced that the ship traveling observers measuring a different distance than we here on earth, as 'Earth Rest Frame Observers' is completely justified, even though I have shown that the distance, due to "Gravity" cannot change. no matter how fast a spaceship travels.

Here is a New scenario for you...bona-petite

You, as observer A, here on earth, watch as your loved one takes off in their spaceship for a new mission.

They are going to fly directly toward the Sun at say .8c and stop halfway there for a 1 day science experiment on the solar wind.

When they get there, they stop and they see you traveling away from them at .8c as per Relativity. As soon as they stop they send you a radio signal saying they made it, even though they know you are traveling at .8c away from them, you will get the message before they return.

The next day, when they are done with their experiment, they try to start their engines but they cannot, and so they send another radio signal.

This goes on for six whole months, with them sending a radio signal everyday, even though they know you are getting farther and farther away.

Now, at the end of that six months, when they finally get those engines fixed...

Which direction should they fly in to get back to you???

By Mike Petersen Date 2010-02-11 11:50

Russ,

You say, "they stop halfway there" and in the very next sentence state, "they see you travelling away from them at .8c"

You can't have it both ways. They either stopped or they didn't. If they stopped, then there is no more .8c relative motion, and your whole scenario falls apart.

oops

- Mike Petersen

By RussT Date 2010-02-12 01:20 Edited 2010-02-12 02:39

Would someone (Richie?) like to explain to Mike what "Really" fell apart???

From my other "Is SR "Real" thread...

First, I have been through many very heavy SR threads over the last four years on BAUT and over that time I have finally figured out ALL the 'double speak' and true inconsistencies that make SR "Not Real"
IE: not even wrong.

The whole set up is all fatally flawed, especially the initial part of 'swapping' motions where one observer can be considered at rest and the other in opposite motion.

Okay.......I'll make this easier for you Mike (and everyone else...LOL)...

If you really understood SR you would understand...

Mike...You are trying to say that "My Scenario" is something different than what SR is showing.......BUT my scenario of stopping 'observer "B" in the spaceship' automatically makes observer "A" traveling at an equal velocity away from the now at rest observer "B" according to Relativity.

SO, IF there is a problem with the scenario, what is the 'real' problem?

Which direction should the spaceship fly in to get back to their loved ones?

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-12 07:02 Edited 2010-02-12 07:08

I didn't quite get your posited question either, Russ. I couldn't quite figure out how either folks would be seen to be flying away at 0.8c after a full stop... well, they might until the signal got to them approximately eight minutes later. If the stop wasn't really a stop, wouldn't they have crashed into the sun? That's the way they were going.

If you are pointing out that they are now at rest relative to one another, then that is true. I don't quite get your query about direction, though. If there's something weird you're imputing to SR, then spit it out so we can dissect it. I'm pretty sure that if the direction is anything but the obvious answer, you have likely missed something.

Are you trying to pull some trick with the accelerations? There are caveats in SR with accelerations, accelerating reference frames in particular. The plain old transformations are for the constant velocity pieces. For accelerating reference frames, see here.

All that aside, I've seen the occasional folks who posit aether claim that it's a function of the maximum speed that the aether will carry, like sound waves in air. You could work the effects of SR through something like that, but I have no idea how much success anyone has managed with that approach.

Positing a universal preferred frame might be a bit harder to show, though I have seen people tackle that too.

By RussT Date 2010-02-12 10:39

Richie said:

Are you trying to pull some trick with the accelerations? There are caveats in SR with accelerations, accelerating reference frames in particular. The plain old transformations are for the constant velocity pieces. For accelerating reference frames, see here.

No tricks with acceleration(s)...I probably should have put this.....(I don't care whether it is instantaneously at 'constant' speed/velocity or not) in, just like I did in the first post of the other thread. Sorry.

BUT, guys, this is just your basic SR...if one observer "A" is considered at rest when another observer "B" is moving away at .8c......then if "B" stops/is considered at rest, then "A" is moving away from "B" at .8c.

If observer "A", who started at rest on earth becomes the 'traveler', because "B" stops/is now concidered at rest, then observer "B" sees observer "A" on the earth, moving directly away from him at .8c.

I am banned from BAUT until the 15th (so I can't link to the threads where the Pro's jumped down my throat for suggesting that IF the earth were really moving like that, that Relativity was "Ignoring Gravity") But I assure you that all the Pro's said that and believe exactly that. That's what Relativity says.

SO, IF "B" is stopped/considered at rest and "A"/earth is traveling at .8c away from "B"...which is exactly what relativity says...then

According to Relativity, "B" should follow the path he had been sending his radio signals on a daily basis, to get back to his loved ones, right?

BUT, where is the Earth "In Reality"???

By Mike Petersen Date 2010-02-12 14:14

Russ,

You said:

if one observer "A" is considered at rest when another observer "B" is moving away at .8c......then if "B" stops/is considered at rest, then "A" is moving away from "B" at .8c.

This cannot be correct. If B moves away from A at .8C relative to A, and then B stops relative to A, then both A and B are at rest relative to one another. I don't know where you get the idea that if B stops relative to A, then B will think/perceive that A is still moving. This is all relative motion, Russ, so your scenario fails.

- Mike Petersen

By RussT Date 2010-02-13 04:03

Congratulations Mike...You just "Falsified" ALL of Relativity!!!

You are correct though...IF observer B stops, fly's slower or speeds up, at a constant speed to infinity, it has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with observer A's motion!!! and therefore Either's concept of changing distances or amount of time passing either where they are or where the other is 'percieved to be'.

The whole thing is/was based on definitions that were/are based on the division by 0...

There is NO 'light in it's own frame' that exists at all...IE: No photons that can travel instantly from point A to point B OR where space is contracted to 0 between any points A and B to infinity, and NO 0 time for photons traveling between any two points to infinity...period

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-13 08:29

RussT said:

IF observer B stops, fly's slower or speeds up, at a constant speed to infinity, it has absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with observer A's motion!!!

If you do this, then you have to leave all mention of A's perception, passage of time and relative speed out of the equation. If B's vantage point is the only vantage point, then you are free to "speed up", "slow down", etc. as you will. The question would be: relative to what? The only absolute in such a system would be angular momentum, and even that's questionable in some scenarios.

RussT said:

There is NO 'light in it's own frame' that exists at all

Back to that again? Did you not understand the objections to your interpretation?

I'm all for attacking relativity for fun and profit if and only if you represent relativity properly, and not the interpretive-mathematical strawman you seem to have constructed.

What I want to see are things like experiments whose results differ notably from the expectations of relativity. Show me something new that accounts for why Michelson-Morley got results that seemed to confirm relativity but when some factor X is accounted for, we see a preferential frame instead, or van Flandern's two kinds of aether, or LQG (somehow?) or the like.

Or show me something else that might duplicate or explain the same results. That might not be a case for a substitution, but it might leave the doors open for that explanation to work in one more case than current relativity theory does.

Heck, start listening to some of those presentations on the page that Lyndon posted a while back. There were a great many folks there attacking relativity, albeit general relativity, for the most part.

Just don't misrepresent relativity in a manner that is not what its proponents posited, and that includes being obtuse about weird theoretical considerations like "zero subjective time" for photons that has absolutely nothing to do with whether we perceive light traveling instantaneously.

The chances that you have found something really easy that everyone else has somehow missed is small. It's like Dr. Simoncini and his entire "Cancer Is A Fungus" focus. It would be nice if it were that simple, and that everyone else had overlooked it, but the chances at this point are very high that Simoncini is the one missing something.

By RussT Date 2010-02-14 11:28

Mike said:

Russ,

You said:

if one observer "A" is considered at rest when another observer "B" is moving away at .8c......then if "B" stops/is considered at rest, then "A" is moving away from "B" at .8c.

This cannot be correct. If B moves away from A at .8C relative to A, and then B stops relative to A, then both A and B are at rest relative to one another. I don't know where you get the idea that if B stops relative to A, then B will think/perceive that A is still moving. This is all relative motion, Russ, so your scenario fails.

- Mike Petersen

Mike, with all due respect, and as politely as possible...

If you think that observer A's motion cannot be 'swapped' for observer B's motion then you do not understand what relativity says. Sorry

By RussT Date 2010-02-14 12:09 Edited 2010-02-14 12:16

Richie said:

The chances that you have found something really easy that everyone else has somehow missed is small.

Richie, that is exactly what I have determined, because everyone was focused on the wrong things and just philosophized away, and "Ignored" vital things...like "Gravity" for one.

Mainstream is absolutely clueless when it comes to Galaxy Formation and evolution, and they do NOT have a clue as to 'When" Massive Black Holes become part of galaxies lives.

They think that they are covering ALL of the ways the Universe could be working when they talk about "Static", "Open", or "Closed" Universe...That does NOT even exist!!!

When you start from the understanding that Baryogenisis takes place when a NEW Massive Black Hole is "Born" for each galaxy individually, and that we can "SEE" the Birth Cry of those NEW massive Black Holes when Long GRB's >2 seconds up to 500 seconds, with those BANGS causing the initial HI clouds to start the first generation of stars for each galaxy...That then gives a 'real' clue as to what Cosmic Censorship really means...NO Naked Singularities!!!

Once you get to that point, and further, it is not hard at all to see that ALL singularities do NOT exist...or put correctly, that the 'definitions' that have been accepted and philosophized away when at the division by 0 ARE THE PROBLEM...they are the Straw man's...they are the "Flying Spaghetti Monsters"...the "Invisible Elves"

For instance...I got Tim Thompson, the most knowledgable poster on BAUT to agree that he did NOT believe, with 100 sigma, that Non-rotating Black Holes (Or non-rotating accretion discs) even exist.

SO, when I came right out and declared that therefore the Maths of Schwarzschild were baisically meaningless, which they definitely are, all I got from everyone was "Denial" and demands to show "Proof" that there are no non-rotating balck holes...........sorry but that is just pure denial and ignorance!!!

SO, I am 100% confident that even the 'Point Singularity', naked or not, does NOT even exist! and there is NO such thing as a "Spherical Event Horizon"!!!...which is another reason that I understand that ALL singularities MUST be eliminated to be talking about something "REAL"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SR's definitions are based on a Singularity/division by 0...

It's late, I'll deal more with just the OP tomorrow.

By Mike Petersen Date 2010-02-14 13:54

Russ,

You said:

"cannot be 'swapped'"

which is a new word, not included in:

"if one observer "A" is considered at rest when another observer "B" is moving away at .8c......then if "B" stops/is considered at rest, then "A" is moving away from "B" at .8c."

You seem to like wriggling out of your own contradictions by changing what you said without acknowledging the fact. I believe I shall no longer post replies to your nonsense. Have a nice life. Oh, and by the way, you may have the last word, so have fun trashing me.

- Mike Petersen

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-14 17:19

Well, if you want to talk black holes :) That's open season, as far as I'm concerned, because folks still don't agree on their characteristics and genesis up to this very day.

For folks who figure that supermassive black holes helped galaxies form, like the folks in our thread here, there is still a giant "well, where did they come from?" question.

The only chance black holes would have to be non-rotating is if they were primordial. I haven't seen that pop out of the mainstream yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that concocted sooner or later.

My armchair philosopher objection to black holes as pictures is that General Relativity's interaction between gravity and time, being equivalent to that between acceleration and time, would make time stand still at any event horizon, so how would it grow? I'm willing to be corrected on that, but I'm also no fan of GR's Equivalence Principle, where gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration. Why would every other force get to be a field, but gravity is a geometry, not to mention the problems that stem from trying to merge this geometric view of space with quantum mechanics?

RussT said:

...which is another reason that I understand that ALL singularities MUST be eliminated to be talking about something "REAL"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The J>0 (rotating) case does not disavow singularities, just point singularities.

Also, you have tripped off the Terry Pratchett rule here :)

And all those exclamation marks, you notice? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.

RussT said:

SR's definitions are based on a Singularity/division by 0...

No, that's GR, from which singularity math is derived. SR is based merely on a constant c in all velocity frames.

By RussT Date 2010-02-15 00:04 Edited 2010-02-15 00:26

Mike said:

Russ,

You said:

"cannot be 'swapped'"

which is a new word, not included in:

"if one observer "A" is considered at rest when another observer "B" is moving away at .8c......then if "B" stops/is considered at rest, then "A" is moving away from "B" at .8c."

You seem to like wriggling out of your own contradictions by changing what you said without acknowledging the fact. I believe I shall no longer post replies to your nonsense. Have a nice life. Oh, and by the way, you may have the last word, so have fun trashing me.

- Mike Petersen

Mike, once again, as politely as possible...

Go to BAUT, find my name....click on it....go to "All threads started by"...find "The Ultimate Twin Paradox" and see what they said when I had ten twins at rest, all on the fifty yard line of a football field, with their twin counterparts taking off in rockets, all at different constant speeds, and then "Stopped ALL of them after x number of seconds"

By RussT Date 2010-02-15 12:23 Edited 2010-02-15 12:45

Ritchie...sorry I have been misspelling your name! said:

Well, if you want to talk black holes :) That's open season, as far as I'm concerned, because folks still don't agree on their characteristics and genesis up to this very day.

Yes, you are correct...and that is all because they are not using Einstein's E-R bridges......he eliminated the singularity! And was trying, for very good reason to falsify his theory...or more correctly, come to terms with Gravity and Magnetic fields.

It is often said that Einstein did not like the concept of Black Holes...That is patently false...he did not like the idea of "Singularities".

When he and Rosen developed E-R bridges, Einstein did that not only to eliminate the singularity, but also to find a way to bring the 'electrons' "Through that Bridge"....He did NOT know about Neutrinos! (Or SMBH's either!)
From a different site...

The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by electric lines of force.

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/EinsteinRosenBridges.htm

Just look at the illistration, and forget everything they "Think" they know.

When Matter goes into Black Holes, it gets "Spaghettified" down to it's base particles.......Neutrinos, and ALL of the High energies are disipated in the depths of the black holes, with the lowest energy Neutrinos coming "Straight Through" (No Singularity) the 'Torus'/throat of the SMBH's.

Those Neutrinos are the ZPE field and have a Temp of ~2.73k and are traveling in every/all directions at "c".

Those Neutrinos are carrying ALL the EM radiation from microwave to Gamma.

That is the reason that Photons are NOT 'born' at "c"...and why there are NO photons traveling instantly between any points A and B!!!

Ritchie said:

For folks who figure that supermassive black holes helped galaxies form, like the folks in our thread here, there is still a giant "well, where did they come from?" question

Yes, well you didn't continue that discussion.

They were trying to show that the Jets from the AGN were making new galaxies, and that is not it. Those Jets were just hitting an already formed cloud of HI HII and promoting new star formation...the Massive Black Hole was already in that galaxy, when the Long GRB went off however long before, as the Birth cry of the new MBH and the creatiion of the HI cloud.

Did you look at any of the links I provided? Yes, the question of "How" those SMBH's form out in Empty Space near the edges of Voids will be 'nearly the same' as How the Universe formed....However...here we are seeing/detecting the "Real" high Energy Gamma radiation, that is the cause/effect for turning Neutrinos as nearly Inert, but slightly charged + and - particles, into the charged electrons/positrons etc...and then once cooled enough, becomes the hydorgen/helium for first gen stars to form.

Ritchie said:

My armchair philosopher objection to black holes as pictures is that General Relativity's interaction between gravity and time, being equivalent to that between acceleration and time, would make time stand still at any event horizon, so how would it grow?

Einstein did NOT have time frozen at the EH ;)

Time is NOT frozen or 0 or dilated (Including gravitational time dilation! Do the Pound/Rebka X at the north or south pole and it won't exist!) for
anything in our Universe. The more they have applied SR to black holes the farther from reality they have gotten...Time and space due not "Flip" inside and there is no build up of matter at the singularity...space/neutrinos as the ZPE field just flow right through

Ritchie said:

but I'm also no fan of GR's Equivalence Principle, where gravity is indistinguishable from acceleration.

As well you should be as it does NOT exist either. In fact, they use those pesky imaginary observers in spaceships to be able to say that the earth is accelerating up...I can't quite remember how to state this...but it has to do with gravity at the surface and you in your chair...and this is Bunk

Then they use the elivator example, where you are not supposed to be able to tell if you are in freefall in gravity or accelerating in the elevator/ship.

But I can easily falsify that...

When you are free falling, in a plane, you will be falling as fast as the plane, and so will NOT be plastered against the back wall, where in a spaceship/elevator, if you are accelerating, you will be plastered against the wall away from the direction of acceleration...

BUT, then they switch and say NO....it is just the elevator on the earth that he meant...wow, did you get all that? LOL

And, as to everything coming down to following geodisics...I agree with you 100% it does NOT work at all.

Here's one I have used several times on BAUT, which they just continue to wave off and ignore. this is about gravity wells and curved space and apply Schwarzshild to massive bodies.

Try doing a 'slingshot' maneuver/gravitational assist, in the "Opposite direction of Rotation" around any fast spinning planet in our solar system.

Ritchie said:

No, that's GR, from which singularity math is derived. SR is based merely on a constant c in all velocity frames.

Sorry, once again, as politely as possible...you are wrong Ritchie...I get back on BAUT tomorrow...so I will show you. Don't feel bad though, since I figured this out and have started focusing on this more on BAUT, I have been amazed at how many do/did NOT know this.

By RussT Date 2010-02-16 12:16

http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/95887-ultimate-twin-paradox-2.html

Slang Post # 56 said:

Change your experiment. Just before launch, give each of the twins in the rockets an injection that will keep them knocked out for 1 minute. When they wake up they're in a rocket. When they wake up they have no idea if the rocket is moving, or not. They're weightless, and might as well consider themselves to be at rest. How would they know they're moving? They "slept" through the launch. Each individual twin in his individual rocket can consider his rocket to be at rest, and look out the window and see 9 moving rockets and one moving planet. Each twin in the rocket will see the planet moving away with a different speed.

Okay, I appologize...not for being wrong, but for sending you to this link thinking that I had lined out the OP wayyyyyyy better than I had.

But, this post from Slang, clearly shows the opposite speed and direction of motion of observer A, when you 'stop' the traveling observer B when B has been traveling away from A. Now B is stopped/at rest, and A is traveling away from B at the same constant speed that B had been traveling at.

Do you see this now Mike and Ritchie?

And, I am saying, loud and clear, that this Violates "Gravity" and what those spaceship observers are seeing is NOT REAL and has nothing to do with how our Universe is working!

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-16 17:58

RussT said:

But, this post from Slang, clearly shows the opposite speed and direction of motion of observer A, when you 'stop' the traveling observer B when B has been traveling away from A. Now B is stopped/at rest, and A is traveling away from B at the same constant speed that B had been traveling at.

No, you're still not making sense. What's with the scare quotes around 'stop'?

I know of no scenario in SR where you can have a rocket fire off, then have it thrust equally in the opposite direction for the same amount of time ("stopping"?), and the location from which it came is now not stationary relative to the rocket. That's the sort of scenario I'm reading from your "A" and "B".

Got diagrams or anything? Just asking, because whatever you're trying to get across in words isn't working, especially when you try to game the use of words like 'stop' and 'traveling' in a manner that looks for all the world like errors of equivocation.

By RussT Date 2010-02-17 02:13

Sorry Ritchie...but the error in eqivocation is once again, with all the politeness I can muster, yours.

IF you eliminate 'acceleration' to get to 'Constant Velocity', then you cannot have the rockets fire their thrusters (for an equal amount of time) to come to "Rest"/stop.

IF a rocket/spaceship, with its observer B inside, is considered to be instantly traveling at 'a constant velocity' of .8c away from observer A, then, according to SR, B can be considered to be 'at rest', with A traveling away from B at .8c.

That is what Relativity says.

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-17 04:12

RussT said:

Sorry Ritchie...but the error in eqivocation is once again, with all the politeness I can muster, yours.

I read that thread to which you linked, by the way. It wasn't some obtuse Nereid-fest of the likes that some here have encountered - some were genuinely trying to figure what you were on about, even positing some things that you might likely trying to espouse. You wrote a lot without actually answering their questions; no wonder they got frustrated with you.

RussT said:

IF you eliminate 'acceleration' to get to 'Constant Velocity', then you cannot have the rockets fire their thrusters (for an equal amount of time) to come to "Rest"/stop.

Wait, if you eliminate acceleration? What, to get around the odious frame transformations? To sneak in some infinity math? Why the scare quotes around acceleration? Do you mean to accelerate and then to stop accelerating? That wouldn't be my first reading. These are not minor quibbles - this whole discussion has hinged on you defining your terms, and you liberally use scare quotes in emphatic, sarcastic and metaphorical senses without leaving many clues as to which is which.

Yes, the thrusters would not be fired for an equal amount of time in a rocket which expends stored fuel, but count in real-life adjustments for the decrease of total rocket mass due to losing fuel and base the measurement off acceleration in the rocket's own frame, if you like. Or use a ramjet for a constant mass.

When I say "rest", I mean relative rest, in that the relative vectors of A and B's velocities are |0 0 0| in one another's frames.

RussT said:

IF a rocket/spaceship, with its observer B inside, is considered to be instantly traveling at 'a constant velocity' of .8c away from observer A, then, according to SR, B can be considered to be 'at rest', with A traveling away from B at .8c.

That's not where you stopped your example. You had B "stop", whatever that means, and then had A still "traveling away at .8c".

If by "stop", you meant, "not accelerating", then it's not violating SR, or indeed would it violate frames in a universe where there were no time dilation effects whatsoever.

If by "stop", you meant, "stop with respect to A's velocity frame", then claimed that B was still moving relative to A, then you would be flat out wrong to ascribe that to SR or pretty much anything else.

If you meant something else, then your clarity has suffered a fatal blow.

You seem like you're trying to trip up SR by trying to make it say two different things at the same time, by trying to conflate two different meanings of 'stop', or two different meanings of 'at rest'. You have not clarified the points of confusion during the discussion, and until you do, and stop lording our confusion of what you mean over our heads, then you're equivocating.

Special Relativity could be wrong - there are other contenders - but as far as I can see, it will not be wrong for any of the reasons you have espoused so far, clarification notwithstanding.

By all means, you can play with the rest of this thread to try out your ideas, but until I see some genuine clarification or signs of understanding what everyone else means, including me, when they talk about Special Relativity or what Special Relativity actually predicts, I honestly can't see my comments helping you.

By RussT Date 2010-02-17 11:43

This has become absolutely ridiculous...

If you do not understand that this is exactly what Relativity says...

RussT said:
IF a rocket/spaceship, with its observer B inside, is considered to be instantly traveling (No acceleration) at 'a constant velocity' of .8c away from observer A, then, according to SR, B can be considered to be 'at rest' (stopped, with no deceleration), with A traveling away from B at .8c.

Then it is not my fault, and I showed you where Slang said the planet was traveling away from each of the 10 twins ships, once those ships were considered 'at rest', at each of those ships designated velocities.

Either observer can consider himself to be 'at rest'/stopped and the other the one in motion....simple as that.

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-17 16:49

RussT said:

Either observer can consider himself to be 'at rest'/stopped and the other the one in motion....simple as that.Either observer can consider himself to be 'at rest'/stopped and the other the one in motion....simple as that.

Then you are saying something utterly unsurprising and non-contradictory to either SR or plain inertial frames.

The "twin paradoxes" happen with accelerations, and you seem to be trying to do one or more of the following:
1) Sneak in instantaneous velocity changes into the examples without the acceleration transformations so that you can disprove the effects that only happen with the acceleration transformations
2) Claim that the acceleration is relative in the same sense as velocity (e.g. the planet is accelerating away from the rocket) even though that is not the case in SR
3) Claim that SR does not handle cases where one observer or the other can be considered "at rest"
4) Claim that every observer being able to say they are "at rest" means that solving for SR issues means you can actually treat them all as being "at rest" when trying to solve the whole system
5) Ignore existing resolutions to and explanations of the "twin paradox"

By RussT Date 2010-02-18 11:47 Edited 2010-02-18 12:05

Ritchie said:

Then you are saying something utterly unsurprising and non-contradictory to either SR or plain inertial frames.

That is exactly what I have been trying to explain, ever since Mike objected in the first place.

In the OP, I simply have observer B, in the ship, traveling away at .8c, toward the Sun, from SR's at rest observer A...on the earth. The ship is assumed to get to 'constant inertial speed' instantly and come to rest instantly...IE; no acceleration/deceleration is involved at all.

If halfway to the Sun, we consider observer B to be at rest, then observer A is in motion.

SO, you tell me...If B is now considered at rest, then how fast is A traveling, and in what direction, according to Relativity?

And, here is the Singularity part I promised you...

http://www.bautforum.com/space-astronomy-questions-answers/99386-confused-t-i-m-e-dilation-2.html

By the way, in this thread I am trying to show that light from SNe cannot get here in 0 time...which it most certainly cannot ;)

from post #55

Originally Posted by pzkpfw
Moderator

This has struck me quite strongly.

It seems...

From the point of view of light, it takes zero time to "get" from anywhere to anywhere, because, as far as any light in the Universe is concerned the distance between any two points is zero.

That is, as far as light is concerned, the entire Universe may as well all be in one place.

(A singularity?)

And...

korjik said:

Since a singularity is a place where an equation gets a divide by zero error, yes, it is a singularity.

That is all in Q&A, so I have to very careful there...

BUT, what I am trying to get everyone to realize is that ALL the definitions that have become 'facts' of 0 time for photons over distance...

Does NOT even exist....at all...never even had a chance of being Real.

By RussT Date 2010-02-19 03:00

Ritchie said:

Then you are saying something utterly unsurprising and non-contradictory to either SR or plain inertial frames.

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-19 09:22

RussT said:

The ship is assumed to get to 'constant inertial speed' instantly and come to rest instantly

I'm pretty sure nearly everyone would have been interpreting 'come to rest' as an acceleration; that's the majority use of the phrase. If you mean "now we are going to change reference frames to that of B", that's a bit obtuse - you should have left out 'come to rest' entirely.

Changing reference frames, B will now be considered as going the negative vectored velocity that A was.

Of course:
* The Sun is going towards B at 0.8c in this scenario
* Accelerations that B has done or will do - if any - have to take into account the frames in which they occurred, so the frames under consideration cannot simply be switched to get away from their effects

RussT said:

By the way, in this thread I am trying to show that light from SNe cannot get here in 0 time...which it most certainly cannot ;)

According to Special Relativity, and that includes some peoples' interpretations of zero 'subjective' time for photons, photons will never take zero time to travel in any frame that matter can experience.

(Now, as to whether SNes are actually the mainstream Cepheid variable equivalents the mainstream has been looking for with which to defend themselves, that is another question!)

The talk about considering the whole universe a singularity is just physics nerds playing with a zero denominator despite the very zeroish numerator. I've seen various researchers and advocates apply the "black hole" label to things just to be cool. For example, one "singularity" you can encounter is the point in the universe beyond which any photon that sets out towards us will never manage to go faster than cosmological expansion pushes the intervening space. I've seen that called black hole (I believe in Hawkings' writings), but it's just a crossover point, not a black hole. (Actual existence of the phenomenon notwithstanding)

By RussT Date 2010-02-20 10:32

Ritchie said:

Changing reference frames, B will now be considered as going the negative vectored velocity that A was.

Ritchie, sorry but this is not making sense to me...A was stationary/at rest on earth, when B took off at 0.8c....so why are you saying...velocity that A was

Ritchie, If SR observer A was at rest on planet earth as B took off, instantly at 'constant velocity' of 0.8c,...then when we consider B to be at rest, and A to therefore be in motion, A would be in motion at 0.8c away from B's at rest position. Either can be considered to be at rest or in motion, Correct?

By Jade Annand Date 2010-02-21 20:03

Ritchie, sorry but this is not making sense to me...A was stationary/at rest on earth, when B took off at 0.8c....so why are you saying...velocity that A was

Sorry, got the two letters backwards there.

By Eduffy80911 Date 2010-03-03 04:10

m'kay, I'll take a stab. In real life, six months have passed and the Earth is now on the other side of the sun relative to the ship (assuming it's not also orbiting the sun in tandem with the Earth). You can't fly through the sun, so the direction you take depends on the velocity you plan to travel and how close the ship can safely get to the sun. The time it took the ship to get to the half way point at .8c is insignificant relative to the six months it remained stationary, so let's just dispense with that. Generally I'm going to say clockwise.

By RussT Date 2010-03-08 12:19

Okay...good job Mr Duffy.

Now, what does that mean for the two SR observers...the "A" observer who started off 'at rest' on the earth, and the "B" observer in the ship that was flying at 0.8c, once "B" is considered 'at rest', and "A" ON THE EARTH is now flying away from "B" at 0.8c?

Were/Are they 'seeing'/measuring/understanding any reality at all?

I am flat out saying NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

AND, Gravity is obviously being completely ignored if you try to do any Relativity what-so-ever!

Einstein developed SR in an "Empty Universe" and when he came out with GR in 1915, they were all hung up on the Mercury Calcs and the Friedmann/Lemaitre EFE global stuff and then there were such strong debates going on about QM and the Heisensburg Uncertainty Principle ETC ETC...

That they completely missed the concept I am showing now...

That "Velocity" is NOT a force, and cannot cause massive things to move out of or alter their orbits.

This completely "Falsifies" ALL of Relativity.

"Swapping Motion" is actually absolutely ridiculous, absurd, and utterly meaningless!

Here is a response one of the Mods (A Physicist) sent me...

Originally Posted by RussT
tusenfem...

Please re-open my new navigation with relativity thread.

If you re-read that thread, it is NOT me that is confused!

Everyone else is making conflicting and varying remarks about how SR works, even some who are supposed to be very knowledgable...especially Northern Boy.

I only have so much time to keep the most coherent ones straight...like grav was by far the best.

As to the ATM claim...it is absolutely obvious, that when one SR observer is considered 'at rest' with the other in 'inertial motion' at the same velocity, that they cann't even see which way to correctly go to get back to where their original destination is "Now"

tusenfem/Mod said:

I am sorry but I see no reason to open it again, unless you come with some real insight. You seem to think that SR does something magically when changing inertial frames. Even in this reply you come up with something that absolutely makes no sense:

that when one SR observer is considered 'at rest' with the other in 'inertial motion' at the same velocity

How is this supposed to be interpreted?
one SR observer is considered "at rest", well you don't say with respect to what, but that is not important, but ANY inertial observer can consider herself to be "at rest" and everything else moving.
Then you come with "another in 'inertial motion' at the same speed. What is that supposed to mean? same speed as WHAT? The first observer? than it is AT REST with respect to the first observer. Or whatever you mean.

Thus unless you can express yourself well, and try to finally understand relativity and Galilean relativity etc. etc. there is nothing to discuss. The reason why everyone is all over you is because your writing up of stuff is done hastily, unchecked, un proof read etc. You may think it is clear, but with the above example I hope it is clear that what you say is all but clear to anyone else who is reading it.

I stand by my decision. You are welcome to contact another mod. I will copy this message into the mod discussion session, so the others know what I said, and they may or may not agree with me.

but ANY inertial observer can consider herself to be "at rest" and everything else moving.

But right here is the key....

He is right.......when you consider "B" to be 'at rest' in the perfectly legitimate example I lined out, then.........

Everything is in motion...........the same motion it was in, as if the spaceship had never traveled at 0.8c to the midway point between the Earth and the Sun.

That spaceship traveling, at any speed, will NOT make the observer on the Earth change his trajectory/orbit around the Sun, in any way what-so-ever!

By Jade Annand Date 2010-03-09 06:16

RussT said:

That spaceship traveling, at any speed, will NOT make the observer on the Earth change his trajectory/orbit around the Sun, in any way what-so-ever!

Is that the source of your misunderstanding? That if you hold the spaceship as 'at rest', that somehow only the one other thing in your example changes relative velocity?

If you're going to introduce orbits, or the sun, or whatever have you, you have to include everything under consideration before and after the frame 'swap'. Simulating: foreach (Item i in AllItems) FrameShift(i, FrameDifference(OriginalA, OriginalB));

How on earth did you think that you could keep the sun out of the equation while you made the swap and then reintroduce it later at its 'original velocity'?

Do you really think Special Relativity would say switching to the view of a pilot would suddenly start making Air Traffic Control skid at 300 mph across the tarmac?

No wonder you've been acting all shocked and surprised :)

By Mike Petersen Date 2010-03-09 11:09

tusenfem/mod = 100% correct.

By RussT Date 2010-03-09 23:50 Edited 2010-03-09 23:57

Ritchie said:

Is that the source of your misunderstanding? That if you hold the spaceship as 'at rest', that somehow only the one other thing in your example changes relative velocity?

So,,,,,you want to alter the velocity of the Sun and The earth as a system?

And then, you actually have to, according to Relativity, include everything the spaceship is going away from, when it is traveling, as going away from it, when the ship is considered at rest, and everything in front of that ship as coming toward it, at whatever velocity the ship was traveling at.

Sheer nonsense.

Velocity does not have the power to alter orbits.....period.

Try it like this...

A ship takes off from the North Pole, straight up, nearly instantly at 'constant speed', at 0.9c, and is considered, nearly instantly, 'at rest' 2 seconds later...

What motion does the observer on earth, watching the take off, now have?

By Jade Annand Date 2010-03-10 06:26

Your "try it like this" isn't helping, because the issue is not what you're doing during this 'frame swap', it's either how you're imputing accelerations or what you do with other entities.

Based on everything you've said during this thread, I have concocted a diagram comparing the original rest frame with three versions of relativity: galilean relativity (no speed limit), special relativity (check my math on rocket C - I think it's correct), and your version of special relativity.

I've simplified the model to 2 dimensions with no orbital velocity, but these can be added in with a simple increase in number crunching and no alteration in the differences between the models.

Here it is.

The last case is built on your stated 'objections' to special relativity that "velocity does not have the power to alter orbits" and "that spaceship traveling, at any speed, will NOT make the observer on the Earth change his trajectory/orbit around the Sun, in any way what-so-ever!".

The only other thing I could take those objections to mean would be that frame shifting causes acceleration. Asserting that would make your case even worse, though.

By RussT Date 2010-03-10 12:27 Edited 2010-03-10 12:31

Wow, thanks for taking the time to make that graphic Ritchie. However, I have absolutely NO CLUE as to why you have a third Rocket in the scenario ;(

So, I have no idea where your confusion is coming from....sorry.

in post 2010-02-17 16:49
RussT said:
Either observer can consider himself to be 'at rest'/stopped and the other the one in motion....simple as that.

Ritchie said:

Then you are saying something utterly unsurprising and non-contradictory to either SR or plain inertial frames.

That is all I am showing!!!

With this, I am simply making this as simple as possible. KenG, Grant Hutchison, and Publius on BAUT show tons of examples of SR, taking acceleration out of the picture by simple saying that the ship "Nearly Instantly Gets to Constant Velocity"...In fact they have made ALL motion inertial by doing this.

RussT said:

Try it like this...

A ship "B" takes off from the North Pole, straight up, nearly instantly at 'constant speed', at 0.9c, and is considered, nearly instantly, 'at rest' 2 seconds later...

What motion does the observer on earth "A", watching the take off, now have?

SO, simply give me your, 'according to Relativity', answer to what A's motion will be, when "B" in the ship is considered to be "At Rest".
Including , if you wish, 'other entities'...(but that will just make it much worse in the 'ignoring gravity' debackle)

RussT Post # 5 said:

BUT, guys, this is just your basic SR...if one observer "A" is considered at rest when another observer "B" is moving away at .8c......then if "B" stops/is considered at rest, then "A" is moving away from "B" at .8c.

If observer "A", who started at rest on earth becomes the 'traveler', because "B" stops/is now concidered at rest, then observer "B" sees observer "A" on the earth, moving directly away from him at .8c.

Slang Post # 56 said:
Change your experiment. Just before launch, give each of the twins in the rockets an injection that will keep them knocked out for 1 minute. When they wake up they're in a rocket. When they wake up they have no idea if the rocket is moving, or not. They're weightless, and might as well consider themselves to be at rest. How would they know they're moving? They "slept" through the launch. Each individual twin in his individual rocket can consider his rocket to be at rest, and look out the window and see 9 moving rockets and one moving planet. Each twin in the rocket *Now at rest* will see the planet moving away with a different speed.