Personal Topic

[Vmedvil2]

Relativity is Medium dependent, for all mediums there is a different speed of light. The Phase velocity is based on the max velocity the particle of light or particle can travel in that medium, if it passed the speed of light value in that medium then cherenkov radiation is released making the particle lose energy. For Instance, the speed of light in empty space V = C, where as in a medium such as glass V < C. Cherenkov is the less than C version of the Higgs field (Mass Generation effect) or Tachyon Condensation when light surpasses the speed of light in that medium.

 

 

Cherenkov Radiation

 

 

Higg's Tachyon Radiation

 

 

 

 

QFT and SR are always right.......

Edited January 16, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[OceanBreeze]

Ooh, harsh, harsh!

 

But actually I thought if this person were to talk to someone like KJW or Markus, he might learn something.

 

Also, that place is pretty dead and sending them a person who is not barking mad or a complete troll might liven it up a bit.  He has in fact been making some progress with KJW, I think. Though clearly struggling to control his behaviour a bit, as shown by the threads you quote.   :)

 

I would never dream of sending them Polymath or Victormedvil,  or Dubbelosix or A-Wal (who've already been there and got banned) for instance. 

 

 

He is not there to learn.

 

He is there (and here and everywhere else he has been) to "share" his theory of Raifitivity

 

You might consider sending Delbert (free energy) the bad elf over there next!

 

That should help liven up things.

[ralfcis]

Well you have not been following along, I have learned a lot on that forum. I needed to have my questions about relativity answered so I could be knowledgeable when presenting my counter-arguments. My only reason to come back to this forum was I promised to come back for you when I had my answers. Who between us is really the one not here to learn?

[ralfcis]

So no answer? I never know when people who just leave a conversation are embarrassed or exasperated or satisfied with the answer. It's ok to be ignorant but it's not ok to not have the integrity to admit it. I'll be on the other forum. No need to check in here again.

[exchemist]

So no answer? I never know when people who just leave a conversation are embarrassed or exasperated or satisfied with the answer. It's ok to be ignorant but it's not ok to not have the integrity to admit it. I'll be on the other forum. No need to check in here again.

What "conversation"? This is a forum. Nobody is obliged to keep on responding to you.

[ralfcis]

Then why are you? Are you now the representative of your chum (no nautical inference implied). Ok maybe a little inference. Hi guys, couldn't help but to check in.

[OceanBreeze]

Well you have not been following along, I have learned a lot on that forum. I needed to have my questions about relativity answered so I could be knowledgeable when presenting my counter-arguments. My only reason to come back to this forum was I promised to come back for you when I had my answers. Who between us is really the one not here to learn?

 

 

I am very glad you learned something. Apparently you needed to!

 

As for me, I was able to deduce the correct answers to the problem you posed. 

 

I am always interested in learning more, and especially to be corrected whenever I have been shown to be wrong about something.

 

You have not shown where anything I posted on this subject was wrong, and from what I see on the other forum, there is no indication that you know this subject very well at all. Your posts have been moved to the alternative theories section and you have been called a crackpot by at least one other poster.

 

Besides that, you have been banned from several other forums because of your flawed understanding , your refusal to learn and your snide attitude.

 

I have not called you a crackpot, but I don't see you as someone that is worth my while to discuss this subject with any further.

 

Carry on without me, thanks!

[ralfcis]

Even though you may try to apply it, there's no shame in ignorance, only in the denial of it.

[ralfcis]

Well as predicted I have been banned from the science forums without getting my final answer on what causes age difference. The last word I got was that it may or may not have something to do with non-inertial acceleration but I guess I'll never know. Does anyone have contact here with KJW on that forum? I'd like to find out the final answer if I could. That guy was a fantastic well of knowledge, the others not so much. I blew my chances of getting the answers I've been searching for over a decade.

Edited January 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Maybe someone here can finish and give me the final answer. Here's how far I got.

 

1. The progression of age difference can only be unequivocally determined  at the valid  end of the spacetime path so long as the start was valid as well. Validity of the start and end is co-location of the two parties. The reason it can't be determined during the path is that the age of each participant is subject to perspective when separated. All perspectives are valid so there is no universal answer on how age difference unfurls from all perspectives except during co-location of the parties.

 

Another thing I learned is that age difference can't be established by light signals between the two parties if the change in relative velocity is a relative stop. The reason is the separation between them can register different age difference results from other perspectives. Also, in constant relative velocity, only reciprocal time dilation is going on. Age difference is not 0, it is dependent on perspective so each of the party's reciprocal view of the others time being slowed do not cancel out to no age difference between them because other perspectives can say there is. These two facts were very important to discover.

 

2. I don't know where acceleration fits into this. I was told this was a non-moving, non-inertial acceleration like gravity; It is not like the changing rate of velocity over time type of acceleration. The example was people on opposite sides of the earth feel the acceleration due to gravity but are not moving wrt each other. That same feeling of non-inertial acceleration is felt by a person making a change in velocity because she is not moving through space within her own frame yet she feels the force of her acceleration which is seen by an outside observer. I'm not sure if that gravity feeling establishes she is the one moving through space and therefore permanently less through time than the other party. I'm not sure if the force that's felt  causes permanent age difference as is caused if you were trapped on the surface of a Jupiter where time would continue as usual for you but someone outside who could observe you would see your time slow. If you left Jupiter, you would have aged less than the person observing you. You'd have to feel some pretty heavy gravity over a long time for that to be the cause of all the age difference, but maybe that's what's happening. Also there are examples of clock info handoffs where there is no acceleration and yet age difference occurs. I thought we were working towards some understanding until this non-inertial gravity thing came in at the last minute and I got banned before my questions about it got answered.

 

3. I never got definitive confirmation that all other theories of how age difference occurs or unfurls are false or not. These include adding up the age difference at the end of each leg of the journey (not valid spacetime paths), equating reciprocal time dilation with age difference when a change in relative velocity occurs (right answer for the wrong reasons), using the sweep of the changer's line of simultaneity to calculate the other's continued ageing while the changer doesn't age during the sweep (doesn't work because it determines age diff before the end of the spacetime path) and a bunch of other theories I made up where the math worked perfectly and seemed plausible but contrary to spacetime path rules. One of them was the changer became the preferred frame and the math worked very nicely for that wrong idea.

[ralfcis]

P.S. I went back for OceanBreeze's answer to the question:

 

"The age difference will be one year at the turnaround point and one more year at the finish, for a total of 2 years difference.

The stay-at-home twin ages 10 years and the travelling twin ages 8 years."

 

Right answer, wrong explanation for it because it breaks up the spacetime path. Without me understanding how non-inertial acceleration is involved, I too don't have the full correct explanation.

[exchemist]

Well as predicted I have been banned from the science forums without getting my final answer on what causes age difference. The last word I got was that it may or may not have something to do with non-inertial acceleration but I guess I'll never know. Does anyone have contact here with KJW on that forum? I'd like to find out the final answer if I could. That guy was a fantastic well of knowledge, the others not so much. I blew my chances of getting the answers I've been searching for over a decade.

Well that was your fault for being rude and complaining about the moderation.

 

You can rest assured you won't get chucked out of this one though. As you can see, if you look around, you can be barking mad, a total charlatan or a frightful jerk and still survive here. :) 

[ralfcis]

That is very good news for those types of people and I don't want to really go off topic but I was only on that forum to talk to people who knew what they were talking about and only KJW fit the bill, the rest were complete rejects IMO. Yes it's rude to tell someone I've judged them to be inadequate for my purposes but I will not be bullied by a forum-Nazi moderator protecting his toadies to troll me with personal insults and ban me for complaining about it. I gave up hope when I thought I was at the end of the discussion and had to endure more abuse from people I had no respect for and didn't want to interact with when suddenly KJW drops this bombshell, from out of left field, that non-inertial acceleration is the cause of age difference. Well that put a reset on the entire discussion. Me pointing that out enraged the forum-Nazi's cabal. He was enraged that I didn't seem to care about having my thread thrown in the trash for suggesting remedial reading courses for one of his henchmen.  My pointing out that even a general book on remedial reading may not specifically solve his problem of misinterpreting my statements sealed my fate. I thought my poem, Ode to the Trash Can, was hilarious but the commandant saw it as a mocking of his unquestionable and arbitrary authority and so I was banned; A small prideful man with unchecked power without any qualms of abusing it.

 

The good news is that I only have that one question left to answer and in another decade of searching I may come across another person who can answer it. The average person here is no less barking mad than the average person there, or on any physics forum, or at any Trump rally for that matter. Science is in a terrible state because it is now run by bureaucrats who shut down any questioning of it with wiki-articles and get the crowd chanting in unison. Any challenge to this group-think is taken as a personal insult with reaction in turn.

Edited January 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

That is very good news and I don't want to really go off topic but I was only on that forum to talk to people who knew what they were talking about and only KJW fit the bill, the rest were complete rejects IMO. Yes it's rude to tell someone I've judged them to be inadequate for my purposes but I will not be bullied by a forum-Nazi moderator protecting his toadies to troll me with personal insults and ban me for complaining about it. I gave up hope when I thought I was at the end of the discussion and had to endure more abuse from people I had no respect for and didn't want to interact with when suddenly KJW drops this bombshell, from out of left field, that non-inertial acceleration is the cause of age difference. Well that put a reset on the entire discussion. Me pointing that out enraged the forum-Nazi's cabal. He was enraged that I didn't seem to care about having my thread thrown in the trash for suggesting remedial reading courses for one of his henchmen.  My pointing out that even a general book on remedial reading may not specifically solve his problem of misinterpreting my statements sealed my fate. I thought my poem, Ode to the Trash Can, was hilarious but the commandant saw it as a mocking of his unquestionable and arbitrary authority and so I was banned. A small prideful man with an inordinate amount of power without any qualms about abusing it.

 

The good news is that I only have that one question left to answer and in another decade of searching I may come across another person who can answer it. The average person here is no less barking mad than the average person there, or on any physics forum, or at any Trump rally for that matter. Science is in a terrible state because it is now run by bureaucrats who shut down any questioning of it with wiki-articles and get the crowd chanting in unison. Any challenge to this group-think is taken as a personal insult with reaction in turn.

Yes, yes, I know: shills.....sheeple......groupthink........they laughed at Galileo............[repeat and fade].....zzzzzzz......... :)

Edited January 21, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add they laughed at Galileo. Let's see if they've added my picture to that wiki article. Strange you're more interested in that than the revelations I got from KJW on relativity. Maybe you'd like to discuss science instead of the tabloid news for a change; you self-admittedly being only one of the few people here with a knowledge of relativity.

Edited January 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add they laughed at Galileo. Let's see if they've added my picture to that wiki article. Strange you're more interested in that than the revelations I got from KJW on relativity. Maybe you'd like to discuss science instead of the tabloid news for a change; you self-admittedly being only one of the few people here with a knowledge of relativity.

Did I say that? Surely not. I make no claim to a deep understanding of the subject, as it was not required for my degree.  I tend to avoid the topic unless it is very simple stuff.

 

I'm stronger on physics with some link to chemistry, e.g. thermodynamics and QM, (but not QFT) or simple Newtonian/Faraday physics.   

[ralfcis]

Oops I misread your statement

 

"and only a subset of those (of whom I am not one) know much about relativity.  "

 

I missed the "not". Sorry.