Einstein's Special Relativity Fails?

[TeleMad]

To moderators of this forum. I formally protest this loud mouth SOB's repeated false allegations that I have lied and continue to lie.

 

She's gonna blow!

 

Mac: … this loud mouth SOB’s …

 

Mac: ... YOU LOUD MOUTH MF.

 

Mac: Well you can go stroke yourself and play all the word games you want

 

Mac: Enough of your petty BS crap.

 

Mac: Does anybody here give a **** about Telmads whinning and distortions. Lets get back to something that is worthwhile. He floods this board with horseshit and wastes time agrguing for arguments sake.

 

 

****? Horseshit? BS crap? Go stroke yourself? LOUD MOUTH MF? Loud mouth SOB?

 

Settle down Mac. Take some deep breaths ... and more of your medication! :-)

[GAHD]

Ok, I'm going to keep this short & brutal; Mac, Telemad, grow up.

 

Both of you are in the wrong here, it takes two to argue.

 

Don't get me the wrong here, no bans are going to come from me on this one, but if this 'he said she said' crap contiues this thread will be closed.

 

That being said perhapse both of you could provide some raw data rather than thought experiments? Proof goes a long way, since we're short on relativistic drives in which to shoot around I've found that proof is a hard thing to come by. Since both of you are so certain your views are correct, there has to be some experiments you have run to verify these claims. In fact I smell a dynamite funded trophy to whoever phoneys it up.

[Mac]

Mac: PAY UP YOU LOUD MOUTH MF.

 

***************************** Extract ***********************

 

Pointed out as fact because, as I had just said in the preceding statement, “for each frame of reference, the other is not in uniform motion”. Pick one frame and from within it, observe the other: the second will be accelerating, and in a non-orbital way (in other words, the satellite isn’t orbiting around the surface clock).

 

That should be enough, but I’ll go into it some more. Each of the two frames of reference can itself be considered inertial (the surface clock’s less so than an orbiting clock’s), but when we look at one of the frames from the other, they are no longer inertial frames.

 

Take the surface clock’s frame, for example. A surface clock at the equator does NOT see a satellite with an orbital period of 12 hours as being in uniform motion. From the surface clock’s frame of reference, the satellite’s frame rises up from one horizon at one point in time, travels in an arched path across the sky, and then falls below the opposite horizon at a later point in time: sometimes the two frames (their velocity vectors) are headed in the same direction and some times the two frames (their velocity vectors) are headed in opposite directions. So relative to the surface clock’s frame, the motion of the satellite frame continually changes: that’s not uniform motion – it’s not a uniform translation of one frame relative to another – that’s acceleration. And because the satellite frame is accelerating with respect to the surface frame, from the surface clocks’ frame of reference, the law of inertia does not hold for the satellite’s. Imagine a person in the satellite who holds a ball out at arm’s length and then simply releases it. What happens? In the satellite’s own frame of reference the ball hovers at rest, obeying the law of inertia: the satellite is an inertial frame itself. But from the surface clock’s frame of reference, the ball in the satellite does not remain at rest, nor does it travel in a straight line at constant speed: it does NOT follow the law of inertia, but accelerates instead. Therefore, from the surface clocks’ frame of reference the satellite’s frame of reference does not obey the law of inertia and is not inertial.

 

Oh, and to try to head a potential counter, let me point out again that the satellite is not in orbit around the surface clock. So one can’t simply say “It’s got to be inertial, because it’s orbital motion”: the satellite is in orbit around the center of mass of the Earth, not around the surface clock, which is quite distant from the center and also rotates along with Earth’s surface.

 

And in case you have forgotten, I gave the following lengthy explanation of the general idea.

 

Sorry, you failed. You don’t get the money.

 

Not an unexpected response from the king of waffels. Your statement was "I have never said orbit is not inertial". I have shown where you said it. Now you want to in your typical fashion make excuses and try and justify your statements. The only issue here is did you say it and the answer is YES YOU DID. PERIOD.

[Mac]

Ok, I'm going to keep this short & brutal; Mac, Telemad, grow up.

 

Both of you are in the wrong here, it takes two to argue.

 

Don't get me the wrong here, no bans are going to come from me on this one, but if this 'he said she said' crap contiues this thread will be closed.

 

That being said perhapse both of you could provide some raw data rather than thought experiments? Proof goes a long way, since we're short on relativistic drives in which to shoot around I've found that proof is a hard thing to come by. Since both of you are so certain your views are correct, there has to be some experiments you have run to verify these claims. In fact I smell a dynamite funded trophy to whoever phoneys it up.

 

Your post is appreciated. I would much prefer we stick to the issue. Telmad has unfortunately deliberately side stepped several issues and not responded to direct questions because they show the falicy. His tactic is to distort what has been said and interject irrelevant information and then argue about what he has said and to pretend he has expose the other in some lie or mis-statement.

 

The fact is he has completely failed in his efforts. For my part I will only make cursory comments in the future noting the distortion and unsupported fiat and rhetoric.

 

As far as proof goes the mere functioning of GPS confirms my position. SRT disallows the use of preferred referance frames. Relative Velocity calculations according to SRT produce an incorrect time dilation, the correct calculation that matches emperical data is that of local "Absolute" motion. These are facts readily available to any that wish to actually look.

[TeleMad]

Your statement was "I have never said orbit is not inertial". I have shown where you said it.

 

No you didn't.

 

You're grasping at straws and coming up empty handed once again Mac.

 

Simplest way

Was I saying what you claimed I was? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

 

You lose. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

 

 

 

 

More detailed and in depth way, showing:

1) You are ignoring the context of your own statements

2) You are trying to change the meaning of my statements

 

1) You are ignoring the context of your own statements.

 

First, back up and consider what you claimed I said. It was definitely more than just any form of "orbit is not inertial". How can we tell? First, what you said is that my alleged statement "orbit is not inertial" was in error. So you have to support that entire assertion. Otherwise, you haven't shown that I was saying what you claim I was saying!

 

Is it possible that the statement "orbit is not inertial" can be NOT in error? Yep!

 

a) BECAUSE YOU YOURSELF SAID THAT ORBIT IS NOT INERTIAL!!! So for you to be claiming I was wrong, you MUST have meant that I said something much more than simply "orbit is not inertial". In other words, you can't simply point out words from me such as "orbit is not inertial" (which are not the words you found, and which you took out of context, to boot) and claim you've demonstrated your assertion: that doesn't cut the mustard.

 

:note: Technically, orbit is NOT inertial: not absolutely. That is, consider a ball at rest in an orbiting space station. The ball follows the law of inertia. But that's actually a physical 'compromise' reached by the individual atoms because they are bonded together: they are forced to act as the same way, as a whole, and so follow a path dictated by the center of mass of the ball. If the ball were to be 'diced up' into its individual constituent atoms, they would follow a myriad different trajectories because of the small discrepancies in the gravitational field (tidal forces) across the volume originally occupied by the ball (the field being strong closer to the Earth and gradually diminishing with increasing distance from the Earth). So again, by your emphasizing that I was in error you can't have meant that I simply said "orbit is not inertial" ... BECAUSE SAYING THAT IN ITSELF ISN'T IN ERROR. In other words, for a DIFFERENT reason than above, you can't simply point out words from me such as "orbit is not inertial" (which are not the words you found, and which you took out of context, to boot) and claim you've demonstrated your assertion: that doesn't cut the mustard.

 

You are ignoring the CONTEXT of your own assertions! And it is that context, which you are ignoring, that makes it clear that what you claim I said was much more than something like "orbit is not inertial", because you claimed that what I said was flat out in error.

 

 

2) You are trying to change the meaning of my statements

My statements about orbit that you found and posted are NOT discussing orbit from 'inside' the two-body orbiting system itself: that is, not from either (a) the frame of reference of the orbiting body itself, or (:note: from the frame of reference of the object being orbited itself. My statements are discussing an 'outside' object's frame of reference looking 'into' the system of one body orbiting another. And when that meaning is taken into account, we see that what I was saying is very different from what you claim I was saying.

 

Let me try to explain using a completely different setup: retrograde motion of the Mars. Mars is in orbit around the Sun, so it is in free fall (free float) and is an inertial frame. But from our frame of reference here on Earth, which is itself in free fall around the Sun, we see Mars' motion to change: it moves in one direction most of the time, but occasionally reverses direction for a brief period, then returns to moving in the forward direction. From our free fall frame, the law of inertia does NOT hold for Mars so Mars' is NOT an inertial frame when considered from our frame... even though Mars, and Earth itself, are both in free fall and so both are inertial frames themselves. The situation with the surface clock and the satellite is analogous, but more pronounced: from the surface clock's frame of reference the law of inertia does not hold in the satellite. When the meaning of what I said is taken into account, we see that what I was saying is very different from what you claim I was saying.

 

 

 

So you are once again just playing tricks: by ignoring the context of your own statements and also trying to change the meaning of my statements, you have wrongly tried to create the illusion that I said something I absolutely didn't.

 

Again, you lose.

 

 

 

Mac: The only issue here is did you say it and the answer is YES YOU DID. PERIOD.

 

FALSE! On more than one grounds.

[TeleMad]

Mac: You want to spend your time claiming others lie and that you haven't said things you have said. I have just pointed out two specific posts where you in fact said what I said you said.

 

False.

 

On the other hand, I have posted three different histories that show you stuffing at least three different statements - some self-contradictory - into my mouth.

[Damo2600]

Einsten then came along, in 1905, and declared the ether a myth. Light doesn't need a medium. And he answered the question, "What does light move at speed c relative to?" ... any frame of reference in uniform motion.

 

Thanks for that Telemad,

 

As far as I am aware light is still considered medium dependent. A vacuum is no longer considered empty. Is the density of a vacuum enough to be considered a medium?

 

The experiment where light was passed through a tube of flowing water and did not go any faster than c proved that light is a constant. That's O.k but we are sitll dealing with stationary frames right? I can see that this is perhaps a little different to the light being bounced on a train from the roof to the floor to the roof being the same for all observers. You now have two observers giving two equal results without the need to test whether it is actually true. I mean if light moves from point A to point B and I am moving away from it how do you know light doesn't appear to slow down for me.

 

Has anyone ever tested even two frames of different velocities to actually see whether light is still a constant?

 

Josie

 

(edit: In the light travelling down a tube of flowing water wouldn't the second observer be someone moving along the water flow? Then wouldn't light appear slower for him?)

[Damo2600]

About all I've said about GPS itself is that we really should stop talking about it if we want to discuss finer points of SPECIAL relativity (and my motion was seconded).

 

Come on Telemad even a dog reading this thread would understand what Mac is saying. Don't sidestep the issue we all know there is a problem here so take the time to explain it or give up. Your attempts to explain it do go off on a tangent and when you come full circle back to the original topic Mac points out the contradiction he predicted would be there all along. You then go on to call him a liar or whatever and then the cycle starts again. We all know what's going on.

 

You are making yourself look like an idiot.

 

Josie/

[Mac]

Come on Telemad even a dog reading this thread would understand what Mac is saying. Don't sidestep the issue we all know there is a problem here so take the time to explain it or give up. Your attempts to explain it do go off on a tangent and when you come full circle back to the original topic Mac points out the contradiction he predicted would be there all along. You then go on to call him a liar or whatever and then the cycle starts again. We all know what's going on.

 

You are making yourself look like an idiot.

 

Josie/

 

Thank you for this post. I think I will simply ignore Telmad's continuation of circular comments, innuendo, lies, distortions and nonsense. He clearly is nothing more than a troll with nothing of value to contribute.

[C1ay]

Thank you for this post. I think I will simply ignore Telmad's continuation of circular comments, innuendo, lies, distortions and nonsense. He clearly is nothing more than a troll with nothing of value to contribute.

I see nothing in this post but flames and personal attacks after you've both been warned to be civil. Thread closed.