Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

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". I don't agree with relativity's interpretation btw.

 

Sluggo, you are completely brainwashed into believing anything relativity dictates without questioning it. 

 

 

Anyone with sense who feels this way would look at theories OTHER THAN SR, with other basic premises, for an explanation.  But not Ralfie.  He aint real quick on the uptake, ya know?

 

All clocks run at the same rate within every frame...The RATE never actually changes from any perspective.

 

This is just plain wrong, as innumerable empirical tests have shown.

 

The ticking rates of clocks do change with speed.  But time doesn't.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

"The ticking rates of clocks do change with speed.  But time doesn't."

 

 That idea  contradicts that physics on every inertial frame behaves the same way. The DSR makes the ticking rate appear to change with speed but the clock rate is unchanged. Time dilation also doesn't change the clock rate observed as it is caused by when simultaneity affects the relative duration of perspective times. I know this means nothing now but it will be clear around page 70 of this thread.

 

PS. Sluggo is not even parroting relativity correctly and  I disagree with both opinions anyway. I don't care what the other interpretations are because I'm using relativity's contradictions against itself and coming up with my own explanation. I'm not trying to unlock the lock using infinite keys. My purpose used to be to try to understand relativity but when I saw its interpretation of time I determined it's hopeless.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Ok you got my interest, how does that work? Oh yeah you told me before, the motion affects the frequency of the clock source. So the frequency aboard the ship is unchanged but relative to outside the ship it is. But it's the frequency on board the ship that is driving the clock readout so somehow the external observer is seeing a different readout?

 

Wrong.  You're confusing objective time with subjective time, and "clock readings" with time.  A moving clock's rate of ticking is changed from ALL perspectives, when viewed properly.  It does not change with perspective.  It just changes as a matter of fact.

 

The clock frequency aboard the ship has changed.  And if the moving party would just admit that he's moving (which SR forbids him to do), he would know that.  SR relies on keeping people ignorant, that's all.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Judging by your response, I think it's doing a good job. And I agree that it is because no one seems to know which contradictions they should follow. They just conveniently ignore the ones that don't fit in with their overall interpretation. Yours is from another planet.

Edited March 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

In order to get a good grasp on the issue, you need to throw out all the STD's, which incorporate the bogus concept of "spacetime."  You need to think in terms of 3 spatial dimensions, and 1 time dimension.

 

Time is NOT a "fourth dimension."

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 no one seems to know which contradictions they should follow. They just conveniently ignore the ones that don't fit in with their overall interpretation. .

 

With a PFT all the contradictions disappear, i.e., never arise in the first place.

[ralfcis]

I get rid of almost all contradictions by separating proper  time from perspective time and making proper time analysis dominant. Proper time is not absolute time at all.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

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.

 

In these circumstances, Einstein would say that his proves that "simultaneity is relative," a completely bogus concoction.  He would say that, because two different observers see the same thing at different times, they are not simultaneous.

 

A PFT adopts the sensible concept of "absolute simultaneity."  Just because two different observers don't perceive a thing at the same doesn't mean it "happened" at different times.  In a PFT, the two observers would agree on the time the "event" (turning on the light) happened.

 

In this example I used two observers who weren't moving, just to illustrate the concept.  But instead of saying the 2nd guy is "20 miles east,," you could say he is moving east, away from the first guy.  The concept is the same.  The light will take longer to reach the second guy.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I get rid of almost all contradictions by separating causal time from perspective time and making causal time dominant. Causal time is not absolute time at all.

 

So you think, but you'll never be able to formulate a complete, consistent theory from that, sorry.

[ralfcis]

Oh yeah, where will I go wrong and can you prove it mathematically. BTW, the contradiction I can't get rid of yet is that at birth the photon sees itself everywhere in the space contracted universe instantaneously. How does pft get around that?

 

Ok that's not really true. The photon travels in a straight line which contracts to zero distance and is travelled in zero time from the photon's perspective. But from an outside observer it travels 1 ly/yr. A person travelling at near c could be everywhere instantaneously following curved straight lines through space that don't link back on themselves.

Edited March 2, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Oh yeah, where will I go wrong and can you prove it mathematically. BTW, the contradiction I can't get rid of yet is that at birth the photon sees itself everywhere in the space contracted universe instantaneously. How does pft get around that?

 

 

Simple. A PFT does not posit an absolute speed limit.

 

Because SR does, it says that when you hit the speed of light, distances shrink to nothing and time stops.  That follows mathematically (only).  Also, mass becomes infinite (it has to, or else it could be accelerated further).

 

Bottom line:  SR says that, at the speed of light you could go clean across the universe and back an infinite number of times in nothing flat.  It's the equivalent of being everywhere at once, essentially.

 

If you want to believe that, help yourself.

Edited March 2, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

OK I should have known better than to ask you a question that required some thought. From the photons perspective its speed is essentially unlimited and that causes the problem. If pft says all speeds are unlimited then it's agreeing with SR that the photon is everywhere instantaneously.

[Moronium]

OK I should have known better than to ask you a question that required some thought. From the photons perspective its speed is essentially unlimited and that causes the problem. If pft says all speeds are unlimited then it's agreeing with SR that the photon is everywhere instantaneously.

 

A PFT does not say that all speeds are unlimited.  I'm telling you why SR says that distance shrink to nothing and time stops.  Do the math for yourself, homeboy.  

 

If you went 20 trillion light years in no time, what would your speed be?  Infinite, right?

 

If you went even an inch in no time, what would your speed be?  Infinite, right?

 

In SR time not only completely stops, but all distances shrink to nothing.  That's kinda like an infinite infinity, know what I'm sayin?

 

Does that "really" happen?  Hell, no.  But that what the math says would happen.  Math aint nuthin.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

"Simple. A PFT does not posit an absolute speed limit."

"A PFT does not say that all speeds are unlimited."

 

I do not see the distinction.

[Moronium]

"Simple. A PFT does not posit an absolute speed limit."

"A PFT does not say that all speeds are unlimited."

 

I do not see the distinction.

 

 

Well, that aint my problem.  Think about it.  BTW, cosmologists measure superluminal speeds between two objects all the time.  So how do they get around that with SR?  They say that the two objects are really motionless, but that the space between them is just getting larger.

 

Hahahaha.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I do not see the distinction.

  

If you're on a high way which posts a 70 mph speed limit, you can still go 60.  Nothing's forcing you to go 70.  Or you could break the speed limit and go 80.  But I don't care how souped up your hot rod is, ya aint gunna be goin no 1,000 mph, even if no speed limit is posted.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Here's what relativity says. Within every frame time passes at the normal rate of time which is c through time. There is no motion within a frame so the rate of space through time is 0c. When you see a frame move, it does so at the expense of it's rate of time through time from your perspective. Hence you see its time "slow" (not really slow but get cut short by relativity of simultaneity)  in order for it to move through space. This is because all frames go at the combined rate of c from all perspectives. From inside the frame you are going c through time only. From outside the frame you are going at c which is partly velocity through time and partly velocity through space. So at .6c through space, you are only observed to be going .8c through time according to time dilation derived from the top formula of c² = v_t² + v_x². (v_t works out to be c/Y)

 

Light should be subject to this law. There is nothing special about it. Since it is going at c through space, its speed through time is 0c to an outside observer. Relativity confirms this.  But from the outside we should see its wavelength, which is purely measured in time units, go to zero and we should see its frequency go to infinity. An infinite frequency would mean time passes instantaneously if that freq was used to drive a clock. We can measure its frequency and if we drove a clock using those clock cycles we would get a time readout for that light frequency driven clock from an outside perspective. Relativity says the time within a light frame has frozen to zero yet we can see the clock tick and it's not zero. So explain away this contradiction to me using any theory you want.

 

PS. our movement relative to the light would change the frequency we see and that would speed up our light clock driven by light frequency whether we moved towards or away from the light. The same would be true for the source of the light moving. If the source of the light was moving towards us it would be blue shifted and away it would be red shifted. I already asked this question to a relativist but he said you can't make a valid clock using the freq of light as a cycle source. I asked why not, a clock driven by x-rays would run faster than a clock driven by infra-red? No answer as usual.

 

PPS. So the closer you go to c, the more likely your ship would be fried by intense radiation.

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis