Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

I have to adjust my thinking...

 

 

 

Indeed.

[Moronium]

Here's a suggestion for you own self-entertainment, Ralf.

 

Randomly write 1,000 numerals, all between 0 and 9, on some stiff cardboard.  Then cut around them all in jigsaw fashion, so that you have 1,000 different pieces.   Then throw them all up in the air.

 

Now you can while away days putting the jigsaw puzzle back together.

 

Then, when you're through, you can spend years looking for secret hidden patterns displayed by the completed puzzle, see!?  Kinda like Polly does, ya know?

Edited March 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I have to adjust my thinking...(Ralf)

 

 

 

Indeed.

 

If you're seeking an intelligible explanation of relative motion, Ralf, you have to start at the beginning, i.e., with the two unproven postulates of SR.  You don't.  You immerse yourself in mathematical minutia, thinking you're going to find something which changes the very premises you have already accepted without question.  All you're gunna find are things that are consistent with what you've already presupposed.

 

I'll use your position on the combo law to illustrate.  You accept this without question, even though it contradicts empirical observations.  Why do you believe it?  Why do you refuse to even analyze the facts?  Because SR says you have to or else you will violate it's postulates.  And you unconditionally accept the postulates as indubitable "fact."  You go so far as to suggest that if you could get TV signals, you would "see" nonsensical doppler shift readings.  You're in, hook, line, and sinker, so quit questioning SR, no matter how physically preposterous it may be.  It's what you want.

Edited March 1, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Boiled down, the two postulates of SR presuppose that:

 

1.  All inertial frames are equivalent, and

 

2.  The speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

 

There are completely viable theories of relative motion which posit that all frames are NOT equivalent and the speed of light is NOT constant in all inertial frames (despite the fact that it is always measured to be constant in any given inertial frame).

 

You reject alternate theories out of hand.  You love and have a quasi-religious faith in SR.  So stop questioning it, eh?

Edited March 1, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok, now that that --------- is back on ignore (and I recommend everyone do the same but not peak in like I did), I can continue in peace. 

 

I was in the process of developing a math operation  determining age difference for STD's depicting non-inertial spacetime paths. Here is another STD that looks like puzzle pieces thrown up into the air much like --------  does when he can't solve a puzzle.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/mw3trj3GkEGuhWGu8

 

The red thick lines are Alice's lines of perspective simultaneity. (I'm going to differentiate between relativity's perspective simultaneity and my proper simultaneity.) At the stop point they swing from slanted to horizontal signifying Alice has changed from .6c relative velocity to 0 relative velocity. Bob, whose lines of perspective simultaneity are blue, does not receive the news of Alice's change until the pink light signal reaches him at t=8. At that point the end of his blue lines swing from seeing Alice at .6c to Alice being stopped. From that point on, Alice and Bob's lines overlap signifying agreement they are now going at 0c. 

 

For 3 yrs they did not agree on their  perspective relative velocity so how could there be an agreement on their reciprocal time dilation. This is an even better question when it pertains to Alice making a rountrip or orbit. GPS satellites depend on an even reciprocal time dilation during the roundtrip of the satellites. Luckily the speed of the trip back is the same as the one away so there is no interruption in the reciprocal time dilation from earth's perspective. (I'm only considering the speed effects, not the gravity effects here.)

 

We are trying to develop a method to determine the time of each participant using light signals. We are armed in this quest using the following 2 formulas derived earlier:

 

(depicted length) x DSR = actual length or time duration of light travel

t_x = t'(Y_m-1) where Y_m is the Y in the minkowski depiction where t_x is the time equivalent of the distance separation aka age difference.

 

Bob and Alice are instructed to send light signals when their clocks hit 4. These are the endpoints of the line of causal simultaneity (not drawn in). 

 

I have to stop for now.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

So far I can't force the two halves of an STD to fit together mathematically so that light signals can be used to tell the correct time across the two halves. This probably means something significant. Everything works fine if you consider both halves as separate and independent. They are not independent in relativity. I don't know what I'll find following this side trail.

 

I'm seeing some sort of possible pattern but so far I've only investigated  for .6c. If Alice goes out at .6c, she can choose any velocity from -c to +c at her 4 yr mark. If she chooses to return to Bob at -c, her age diff from Bob will be 4 yrs. She'll be 4 yrs younger (Bob 8, Alice 4) but I'm trying to prove Bob will be 4 yrs older (Alice 8, Bob 12). This is a significant difference that will banish the idea that a photon appears everywhere across the universe simultaneously according to relativity. So far no luck in dispelling a concept I don't see as physically possible even though the math so far says it is.

 

  If she chooses -.6c, her age diff will be 2 yrs (half of 4). If she chooses 0c, her age diff will be one yr (half again). If she chooses to continue at +.6c, her age diff will be 0 yrs. I haven't worked it out yet but I assume if Alice speeds away faster from Bob in .6c increments after the 4 yr mark at .8824c (twice .6c), her age diff to Bob will be -1 yr (she'll be ageing faster than Bob). At 63/65 c (thrice .6c) she'll have a -2yr age diff. At +c, she should have a -4yr age diff if this pattern holds true. She will end up 4 yrs older than Bob if her velocity change at the 4 yr mark is a jump to +c away from Bob.

 

I need verify the .6c blocks away from Bob and  investigate how it works for other speeds like .8c increments and at different numerical values for turnaround times. Then if this pattern holds true and isn't a fluke, I need to figure out what it physically means.

 

PS. I've also noticed another weird pattern: prime numbers are popping up in the denominators (and sometmes numerators) . 3/5 is .6c, 15/17 is  .8824c, 40/41 is .9756c. I wonder if multiples of .6c or .33c in the combo formula are a mathematical prime number generator. Better get on that Moronium. All you need to learn is that formula and see if it really spits out nothing but prime numbers in the denominators.

Edited March 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

I'm seeing some sort of possible pattern ...At .9756c (thrice .6c) she'll have a -2yr age diff. At +c, she should have a -4yr age diff if this pattern holds true...I've also noticed another weird pattern: prime numbers are popping up in the denominators. 3/5 is .6c, 15/17 is  .8824c, 40/41 is .9756c. I wonder if multiples of .6c or .33c in the combo formula are a mathematical prime number generator.

 

 

Then, when you're through, you can spend years looking for secret hidden patterns displayed by the completed puzzle, see!?  Kinda like Polly does, ya know?

 

 

Not that it even matters, but 3 times .6 is .216, not .9756. If you're trying to add them up, that would be...let's see here....uhm, 2.4, not .9756

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If Alice goes out at .6c, she can choose any velocity from -c to +c at her 4 yr mark. If she chooses to return to Bob at -c, her age diff from Bob will be 4 yrs. She'll be 4 yrs younger (Bob 8, Alice 4) but I'm trying to prove Bob will be 4 yrs older (Alice 8, Bob 12

 

The reason she has a "choice," Ralf, is because you can either treat her or Bob as the one who is moving.  If you want Bob to be older, it's simple.  Assume that he is stationary. 

 

That won't "prove" a damn thing about the "real world," but you don't care about that.  You're not interested in the real world, just math.  Math only deals in assumptions, not facts.  Give math some assumptions, and it will give you some "answers."  The assumptions can be contrary to all known fact, but math won't care.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Physics is a lock, math is a key.  There are many patterns on many keys but only a tiny few fit the physical pattern within the lock. You can try to unlock the lock with the brute force method of trying every key and you might just get lucky. Or you can take a key that already opens the lock and thereby understand the physical pattern within the lock and maybe develop a skeleton key that opens up similar locks. Relativity's rules limit the key patterns. For example, you're not allowed to determine age difference until the two parties physically re-unite even though the math patterns say you can. I will prove this and hopefully come up with a method that can combine patterns that can unlock relativity contradictions such as a photon at birth instantaneously is everywhere across the universe. That's some big wavefunction and is obviously nonsense physically but not nonsense with the current math.

 

Here, graphically, are the range of choices from -c to +c in .6c increments Bob or Alice can make at the turning point of t=4. For the dummies who respond you can't stamp a double stamp, you can't stamp a double stamp, I mean, you can't go at + or - c, you can't go at + or - c, no you can't so when I say c it means a hair less than c, ok dummies?

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/evCSzKgaicLqaGc58

 

Either Bob or Alice can make a velocity change but for simplicity we won't yet allow both to make an equivalent combinatorial change as is allowed because there is more than one way to draw a relative velocity. Alice's red lines stop when they hit Bob's blue line at 0c and Bob's blue lines stop when they hit Alice's red line of .6c. 

 

Relativity only allows a tiny fraction of these lines to be valid for the determination of age difference. From Bob's perspective, Alice can't speed up away or slow down, she can only return to validate age difference. So her red lines are only valid between Bob at 0c and Alice at 0c. From Alice's perspective,  Bob can't speed up away or slow down, he can only return relative to her .6c line.So his blue lines are only valid between Bob at 0c and Alice at .6c.

 

So how do we overcome these restrictions to figure out what's going on inside the forbidden zone. I figured out a math pattern, using half speed lines, that allows you to tell the resultant age diff over the entire range from -c to +c. Alice no longer has to return to Bob. Any velocity change going away from Bob now yields a valid age difference. It also shows you the progression of age difference during the relative velocity mismatch time where Alice makes a change and Bob doesn't find out about it later. The progression of age difference occurs in the unseen proper  time and it doesn't match the time dilation which is seen in perspective time. Another benefit is it graphically shows the age difference long before Alice's velocity lines intersect Bob's 0c line. The age difference can be determined long before a re-unification occurs. Any further changes in velocity are easily accommodated if they occur.

 

I have to go but here's the start of the construction of this method for some relativistically valid velocity changes for Alice.

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6158&mode=view

 

The two unlabelled lines are 5/13 c and .2c. Let's take the .6c return line for example. You can see it intersects Bob's 0c line at t=10 and t'=8 which relativity tells us that Alice ends up 2 yrs younger than Bob. 

 

I get the same answer using my method but much sooner. The half speed of .6c is 1/3 c. That green line goes from Bob t=8 (where he learns of the news of Alice's velocity change) and intersects Alice's velocity line at t'=6. This is a new type of simultaneity called half speed simultaneity. It's half way between perspective and proper simultaneity. It tells us Bob is 8 and Alice is 6 so she will be 2 yrs younger than Bob at re-unification. Check out the rest of the lines and see that my method matches the age diff times that intersect Bob's axis.

 

You may ask how does this math trick match the physics? It is the earliest Bob is aware of Alice's velocity change and half speed lines of simultaneity offer a perspective that matches lines of proper simultaneity. For example, if you draw a .6c minkowski STD and you also draw in the half speed line of 1/3 c, you will notice the perspective simultaneity of that 1/3 c line intersects the same proper times on Bob's vertical axis and Alice's slanted axis. 

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6159&mode=view

 

The green lines are the 1/3 c perspective, the red are Alice's .6c perspective and the blue are Bob's 0c perspective simultaneity lines. In other words, oh looky, the numbers are the same at the ends of the green lines and they're not the same on the ends of the red and blue lines (if they were fully drawn). The half speed lines offer a window on the unseen lines of proper simultaneity which join proper time values.

 

PS. Now some of you may be experiencing cranial meltdown at this point wondering if it's worth the effort to try to understand the math. Not Moronium, though, because Moronium is actually the substance that gives him his superpower of invulnerability to math rays causing cranial meltdown.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[conway]

Physics is a lock, math is a key.  There are many patterns on many keys but only a tiny few fit the physical pattern within the lock. You can try to unlock the lock with the brute force method of trying every key and you might just get lucky. Or you can take a key that already opens the lock and thereby understand the physical pattern within the lock and maybe develop a skeleton key that opens up similar locks. Relativity's rules limit the key patterns. For example, you're not allowed to determine age difference until the two parties physically re-unite even though the math patterns say you can. I will prove this and hopefully come up with a method that can combine patterns that can unlock relativity contradictions such as a photon at birth instantaneously is everywhere across the universe. That's some big wavefunction and is obviously nonsense physically but not nonsense with the current math.

 

Here, graphically, are the range of choices from -c to +c in .6c increments Bob or Alice can make at the turning point of t=4. For the dummies who respond you can't stamp a double stamp, you can't stamp a double stamp, I mean, you can't go at + or - c, you can't go at + or - c, no you can't so when I say c it means a hair less than c, ok dummies?

 

https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipPCeoaUZgSvz5LY3yOG5EzEkFUSa042-f3AoQ5j

 

Either Bob or Alice can make a velocity change but for simplicity we won't yet allow both to make an equivalent combinatorial change as is allowed because there is more than one way to draw a relative velocity. Alice's red lines stop when they hit Bob's blue line at 0c and Bob's blue lines stop when they hit Alice's red line of .6c. 

 

Relativity only allows a tiny fraction of these lines to be valid for the determination of age difference. From Bob's perspective, Alice can't speed up away or slow down, she can only return to validate age difference. So her red lines are only valid between Bob at 0c and Alice at 0c. From Alice's perspective,  Bob can't speed up away or slow down, he can only return relative to her .6c line.So his blue lines are only valid between Bob at 0c and Alice at .6c.

 

So how do we overcome these restrictions to figure out what's going on inside the forbidden zone. I figured out a math pattern, using half speed lines, that allows you to tell the resultant age diff over the entire range from -c to +c. Alice no longer has to return to Bob. Any velocity change going away from Bob now yields a valid age difference. It also shows you the progression of age difference during the relative velocity mismatch time where Alice makes a change and Bob doesn't find out about it later. The progression of age difference occurs in the unseen causal time and it doesn't match the time dilation which is seen in perspective time. Another benefit is it graphically shows the age difference long before Alice's velocity lines intersect Bob's 0c line. The age difference can be determined long before a re-unification occurs. Any further changes in velocity are easily accommodated if they occur.

 

I have to go but here's the start of the construction of this method for some relativistically valid velocity changes for Alice.

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6158&mode=view

 

The two unlabelled lines are 5/13 c and .2c. Let's take the .6c return line for example. You can see it intersects Bob's 0c line at t=10 and t'=8 which relativity tells us that Alice ends up 2 yrs younger than Bob. 

 

I get the same answer using my method but much sooner. The half speed of .6c is 1/3 c. That green line goes from Bob t=8 (where he learns of the news of Alice's velocity change) and intersects Alice's velocity line at t'=6. This is a new type of simultaneity called half speed simultaneity. It's half way between perspective and causal simultaneity. It tells us Bob is 8 and Alice is 6 so she will be 2 yrs younger than Bob at re-unification. Check out the rest of the lines and see that my method matches the age diff times that intersect Bob's axis.

 

You may ask how does this math trick match the physics? It is the earliest Bob is aware of Alice's velocity change and half speed lines of simultaneity offer a perspective that matches causal lines of simultaneity. For example, if you draw a .6c minkowski STD and you also draw in the half speed line of 1/3 c, You will notice the perspective simultaneity of that 1/3 c line intersects the same proper times on Bob's vertical axis and Alice's slanted axis. 

 

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6159&mode=view

 

The green lines are the 1/3 c perspective, the red are Alice's .6c perspective and the blue are Bob's 0c perspective simultaneity lines. The half speed lines offer a window on the unseen causal lines of simultaneity.

 

PS. Now some of you may be experiencing cranial meltdown at this point wondering if it's worth the effort to try to understand the math. Not Moronium, though, because Moronium is actually the substance that gives him his superpower of invulnerability to math rays causing cranial meltdown.

 

Pure word salad....easy diagnosis...with any of his post...

[ralfcis]

The difference between word salad and subjects that are difficult to understand is whether the writer tries to obfuscate the meaning or enable understanding. In other words, the peridontium of allegoric allustraction of subjective eigenvalues keys imigdulic responsiveness to consciousness. The latter explanation is word salad. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

ralf;

Has she gone back in time from the planet's perspective or has she gone forward in time

 

[Alice has moved in space for a distance of 3 ly at .6c. While Bob on earth observed her for 5 yr, she and her clock simultaneously ran slower than Bob's clock. She is 1 yr younger than Bob when she arrives. The red emphasizes: the clocks are both running, just at different rates. No one or no thing is moving in time! It's a dramatic metaphorical figure of speech, that gets peoples attention. It's also an interpretation of the spacetime graph if you view it as a roadmap.]
 

So what time is it really? Is our reality and our present subjective and other perspectives see it differently or is there a common reality that everyone can agree upon after post-processing the info? Relativity says no to this.

 

 

[The time is whatever your 'local' clock indicates. You can't track events using a remote/distant clock, since that requires synchronization, which only works for constant relative motion. Once a clock changes its motion, it's no longer in synch with the other clock. Discovering light transmission was not instantaneous, ended any form of universal time using light signals.]

 

 

We already have a clue to this common time because all clocks tick at the same rate within every frame.

 

 

[Only because all processes, including clocks and biology, run slower when in motion. The altered sense of time and distance maintain a perception of constancy. If awareness of events was instantaneous, no one would be aware of anything!

'Instantaneous' and 'infinity', are two of the most useless words.]

 

 

[Moronium]

The time is whatever your 'local' clock indicates....Once a clock changes its motion, it's no longer in synch with the other clock. Discovering light transmission was not instantaneous, ended any form of universal time using light signals.]

 

Only according to SR with regard to what "time" is.  Two clocks running at different rates does not change time.   My watch running 5 minutes per hour slower than yours does not change "time."   

 

You can "sync" clocks travelling at different speeds to continuously read the same time.  The GPS does it all day, every day.  

 

The fact that the speed light transmission is not infinite does not preclude the establishment of a universal time.  We have elaborate standards for establishing a "universal" time right here on earth, despite the fact that there are many different "time zones" (an hour per 15 degrees of circumference).  The fact that half the earth is dark and half light at any given moment does not change time. Such differences can be accounted for.  So can differences due to time delay resulting from distance.  How else would we be in any position to claim that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (or whatever the current claim is)? Light from distant galaxies obviously does not reach us "instantaneously."  So what?

 

If a strong light beam is turned on and pointed in a easterly direction and is then seen sooner by a guy 10 miles east than a guy 20 miles east, that does not mean that the light beam was turned on at two different times.  It was only turned on once, whether or not the speed of light is instantaneous.

 

And, by "working backwards," both guys will agree on what time it was turned on.  Nothing magic about that.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

" the clocks are both running, just at different rates."

 

From whose perspective? From a 1/3 c perspective of both of them, they are running at the same rate. From each of their perspectives of their own clocks, they are also running at the same rate. All clocks run at the same rate within every frame so how can they appear to run at different rates due to velocity and distance. Velocity and distance can't re-write a clock reading.

 

The last statement is wrong. The Doppler shift ratio DSR is proof velocity and distance can alter a clock reading; they cause a rate of clock info delay that appears like the clock is slowing. 

 

When they relatively stop, the clock rate continues as normal. This must mean it speeds up on the person's clock who's stopping which relativity says can't happen. The RATE never actually changes from any perspective. Something else is going on and I've carefully explained what I think that something else is. If you understand what I've said and disagree with it, please show me a counter-argument. That would require you to stop parroting dogma and start using the power of reason.

 

"No one or no thing is moving in time! It's a dramatic metaphorical figure of speech, that gets peoples attention."

 

Nope just look at Greene's video of past present and future all existing simultaneously from combined perspectives. He states an alien on a bike a billion light years away when pedalling towards us is in our future and pedalling away is in our past. He doesn't stop at "sees", he goes all the way into "is". If he meant "sees" he could have said the alien on the bike, when peering into a telescope, sees our past. But there is no way he could see our future using that method. Einstein himself said past present and future are persistent illusions. I'm using relativity's interpretation. Look up Einstein's quote and you'll see he meant it in the same way I'm interpreting it. I don't agree with relativity's interpretation btw.

 

"The time is whatever your 'local' clock indicates. You can't track events using a remote/distant clock, since that requires synchronization, which only works for constant relative motion. Once a clock changes its motion, it's no longer in synch with the other clock. Discovering light transmission was not instantaneous, ended any form of universal time using light signals.]"

 

Completely not true, this is why relativity was invented to be able to calculate the lack of sync. What you're saying is what if arithmetic didn't exist, there'd be no way to know what 1+1 equals. A total straw-man argument is what you're presenting.

 

"[Only because all processes, including clocks and biology, run slower when in motion. "

 

Absolutely wrong. They appear to run slower from different perspectives and not in an absolute sense. In constant relative motion their relative clock ticks can be calculated using the formula for time dilation. But when 1 makes a change in that constant velocity, their relative motion is no longer relative until the news of the change reaches the other party. Each one sees the other move at  a different relative speed so they calculate 2 different, no longer reciprocal, time dilations. 

 

Sluggo, you are completely brainwashed into believing anything relativity dictates without questioning it. Your brain has redacted every counter-point I made and this page looks blank except for your parts I quoted.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Absolutely wrong. They run slower from different perspectives and not in an absolute sense.

 

 

 

 

For once you know what I'm saying, Ralf.  You just don't know how to explain why.

 

 

If a strong light beam is turned on and pointed in a easterly direction and is then seen sooner by a guy 10 miles east than a guy 20 miles east, that does not mean that the light beam was turned on at two different times.  It was only turned on once, whether or not the speed of light is instantaneous.

 

And, by "working backwards," both guys will agree on what time it was turned on.  Nothing magic about that.

 

Here, I'll give you a hint (for about the 50th time):  You'll never get an absolute answer from a relative theory.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Just because a broken clock is right twice a day doesn't mean there's something right with it. An alternate saying, " Kernels of truth ain't worth pickin out of a pile of thought turd." I just made that up. 

Edited March 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

No fool is a bigger fool than a fool who thinks he's not a fool.

 

I just made that up.

 

Here's an old one for you, Ralf:  "No one is so blind as one who WILL NOT see."