Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

I done told you to throw out the bogus STD's, and "spacetime" with it.

 

Here's the theory, I guess.  If you are absolutely motionless, then you are traveling at the speed of light.  Though time.  Time is not even the kind of thing you can "move through."  It's not a path through the forest. It's not something tangible or something you "see."  It's just an abstract concept.

 

If you want to believe you're traveling at c right now, help yourself.  Math aint "reality," Ralf.  Neither is graph paper.

 

If you tell me that black is white, and tell me to explain how that can be, it would be foolish for me to try to "explain" it.  I would just say "You're wrong."

 

With a PFT you simply don't move "through time."  The idea is absurd in any physical sense.  Time is not a fourth dimension.  It can't be converted to distance, or vice versa. Not physically.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

So you're not ageing at all. Congratulations. Stop saying math is useless just because its useless to you because you have no way to understand it. My simple math derives the formula for time dilation in case you missed it just using one simple pythagorean expression. Can you point out what that expression is? Please shock me and show me you have some ability to comprehend and follow a conversation.

Edited March 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Here's a repost from another thread, Ralf.  See if you can understand it:

If I asked two people how far Podunk is from here, one might say "about 50 miles" and one might say "about an hour."

 

Of course an hour has nothing, per se, to do with distance, but you can think of it in those terms if you want.  Assuming that a guy is travelling at the rate of 50 mph (usually a totally unwarranted assumption), then Podunk is "an hour" from here.  Time and distance are both required to calculate speed, so they are all, to that extent, interrelated.

 

But guys like Minkowski thought this inter-relationship was somehow an "independent reality" as opposed to a mere restatement of a mathematical relationship.  What do you expect?  He's a damn mathematician, not a physicist.  What does he know about "independent reality?"

 

If I decided to mash down on that accelerator and hold it at 100 mph all the way to Podunk, thereby getting there in a half an hour instead of an hour, I certainly wouldn't claim that I had traveled a "shorter distance"  than 50 miles.  Only an SR disciple could possibly think that, I figure.

 

Here I might add that if I had badly worn tires, thereby reducing their circumference, then my odometer might tell me I had gone 54 miles, instead of only 50, when I got to Podunk.  But that would not mean that I had "actually" traveled 54, even if I felt sure that I did.  It wouldn't change the distance, it's merely a mismeasurement.

 

[ralfcis]

Ok Mr. Trump stop ducking the question like you've ducked every question so far. I know you can't unlock the power of numbers but can you unlock the power of words or (hint) letters? Do you want to phone a friend?

Edited March 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 

 

 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....

 

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. 

 

...The half speed lines offer a window on the unseen causal lines of simultaneity which also join proper time values.

 

 

 

I don't even pay attention to this kind of gibberish, Ralf.  You think you eliminated all contradictions, eh?  You don't even touch on them.  BTW, half of .6c is .3c, not 1/3c.  No one can follow that kind of "reasoning."

 

Play with your numbers until eternity, I don't care,   But don't try to pull me into that quagmire.  Your problem is that you don't even understand the concepts or the issues.  Numbers can't help you with that.

 

I've pointed out a direction for you to consider, but you don't even care about understanding the problems, let alone resolving them.  You just want to play with numbers.

 

Have at it.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If you know the lorentz factor you can predict the difference in ages before one even leaves home, and even if they never return.  You don't even understand that.  You  think you have to look at a piece of graph paper to figure that out.

 

You tell me that, and I'll tell you that she will be 8/10 of the earth twins age for every second she travels.  Tell me the distance, and I'll give you raw numbers.  Say it's 20 light years in the stationary frame.  OK, she'll be 8 years younger after a 40 light year round trip.

 

What if she just goes out 40 light years and stops?  Exact same answer.  The LT don't pertain ONLY to round trips.  You don't understand that either.

 

I know that before she leaves.  It's a simple, uniform math ratio. That's your hidden "pattern," eh?

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

 Buh bye then. 

Edited March 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Damn, I'm going to miss Moronium because he always makes me think. I'm thinking since the frequency of light we see from our perspective is the same freq of light from light's perspective then light's speed of light through time must remain c and not be diminished by the speed of light through space c. Time does not then stand still from the photon's perspective but the rate of time within and without the photon's frame remains normal at c. This then means the speed of ships near c through space do not have near 0 speed through time and photons do not cross the universe instantaneously. That's the answer I've been looking for, some double cap that prevents near infinite speed from any mixed perspective. There's already a cap in perspective time but maybe this 2nd cap exists in causal time. Just spitballin' here, I don't know where the math will lead me. 

 

This means in Alice's return trip at -c example, Alice takes 4 yrs not 0 yrs to return to Bob. (I still need to figure out a way to add those 4 extra Alice yrs to Bob's age.)  Her light signal takes 3 years and if she is crossing the 3 ly distance in 4 of her yrs her speed is .75c. .75c is equal to Yv of .6c (1.25 x .6) which is also 1/slope of the ct' axis. This is a huge clue for me to straighten out the last problem I have with relativity. I need to explore the result for different separations and different speeds to see what this means for a new top formula. It would be great if this means there's some sort of cap on the way back that's based on the speed of the way out. If true, I'm not in Kansas anymore with relativity. A new basic formula will need to be derived. I've got too many pokers in the fire and it looks like they all point to the same solution.

Edited March 3, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

News flash, Ralf.  By the dictates of SR you're always going zero in your own frame.  Applying that to light, it's speed would be zero.  It wouldn't move at all.  Only other things in the universe would, at varying speeds.  It wouldn't be moving toward earth, earth would be moving toward it. And given the vast discrepancies in speed, the earth would be moving at .999999c, or whatever.  And the earth would be moving at the same speed in the opposite direction (say that's east) if light were coming from there.  Same with light coming from the north and south.  The earth would be moving like a hummingbird in all directions at once.  Make sense?  It doesn't to me, either.

 

 

Now is it true that YOU are always "at rest" in the ether? Especially when 4 different photons tell you different. And even though you're already traveling at c "through time?" Fraid not, but who ever said SR had anything whatsoever to do with reality?  It's a parlor game for wannabe mathematicians, that's all.

Edited March 3, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Are you still working on answering my question because those last few piles of drivel ain't it. I thought you said goodbye and here you are again with a lot of words and absolutely no understanding to back them up with.

[Moronium]

I said I wasn't going to play numbers games with you. Why should I?  You can't even understand a simple ratio.  I tried, now and again, to help you with some concepts, but you're absolutely hopeless.  I give up.  I may respond to others in this thread, but I've had it with your ignorant azz.

 

Bye, Ralfie.

[ralfcis]

The top formula for relativity is c² = v_t² +v² 

 

From this formula its easy to derive the formula for Y = c/(sqrt(c²-v²).

 

More precisely that is the formula for Y. This is the gamma of time dilation when there is an observed velocity through space v.

 

But there's an entire mirror image of the math for the observed velocity through time v_t . The formulas are the same except where you see a v, replace it with a v_t or work it out from the top formula.

 

So Y_t = c/(sqrt(c²-v_t²).

 

Now I make a lot of mistakes doing algebra so I check each step with  numbers.

 

If v = .6c, v_t= .8c 

 

Remember v = x/ct and v_t =ct'/ct. Looking at the STD from Bob's perspective if ct =5, ct'=4 and x=3. So v=.6 and v_t =.8. it checks out.

Y =5/4 and Y_t = 5/3. correct.

 

Using more algebra we see  c= v_tY=vY_t

Using numbers 1 = 4/5 x 5/4 = 3/5 x 5/3 checks

 

Using more algebra  Yv = v_tY²/Y_t 

Using numbers 5/4 x 3/5 = 4/5 x 5/4 x 5/4/ 5/3 checks

 

If v =c, Y = infinity. There is no room in physics for infinity and yet relativity allows Y to be infinite without doing math tricks to get rid of infinity.

 

Here are the math tricks:

 

There are  4 ways to re-write vY and 4 to re-write v_tY_t for a total of 8 equivalent equations.

 

6 work out correctly and reduce to zero when v=c or v_t=c.

 

Only two remain at infinity so we attack those two to get rid of it. 

 

1. vY = v²Y_t/v_{t  when} v=c  Yv =  infinity which is not a real number but in the equivalent form Yv = v_tY²/Y_{t  when} v=c  Yv =  0 which is real. It's not that the formula for Yis wrong, it's that Y is inseparable from v.

 

2. The same thing can be done for v_tY_t when v_t=0. 

 

This is how I get rid of infinity from relativity and the idea anything exists everywhere instantaneously across the universe. How did such a  ridiculous idea survive for so long. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

I had a homey who was trying to lay some 12' x 12" tile in his bathroom.  He wanted to pre-cut his last tile so he measured one length of his bathroom.

 

It was 5' 6" long, so he cut some of his tiles in half for the last row.  When he got to his last pieces his pre-cut pieces were too short, and he couldn't figure out what he was doing wrong.  He remeasured the room (many times before he was through) and it always came out to be 5' 6."  He kept checking and re-checking his math.  He had made no mistakes, that he could see.

 

He couldn't see why or how, but he assumed his math had to be wrong, so he called me to see if I got the same answer, which of course I did.

 

He was still bewildered.  I asked him:  "Got your tape measure?"  He said yeah.  Then I asked him if he had an uncut tile handy.  He said yeah. I said:  "measure it."

 

He did, and it turned out to be only 11.5" square not 12."  On the box it said they were 12" tiles, but that was just the nominal length.  He said:  "Thanks, I would have been re-checking that math all night long.  The whole thing was driving me crazy." 

 

Then he asked why that hadn't occurred to him.

 

I said: "Because, like almost everyone I know, you never question your assumptions.  Once an assumption gets stuck in your head, it never occurs to you to alter it. Assumptions become inviolable.  Something "out there" has to be wrong, but never the assumptions which you have cemented into your head."

 

That's when he got pissed off and said he would never talk to me again, ya know?

Edited March 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If a person can't understand that the reciprocal time dilation asserted by SR is logically impossible, then he'll never understand anything.

 

He might then ask why in the world SR would propose it, and then think it must somehow be "right," because the theory has been accepted by many for a long time.

 

If they actually understood the two postulates of SR, then they would know why SR MUST claim that time dilation is reciprocal.  But they often have no clue about the mathematical implications of the postulates.  If they understood the details of the theory, they would know that SR itself has to reject that proposition in order to make accurate predictions.  But they don't understand that either.  So they just assume that the theory must be correct, because they've been told it is.

 

The question remains:  Why is SR widely accepted?  In part for the reasons I just stated. I have given a number of other reasons for that in other threads, and won't try to repeat them here.

Edited March 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

If you can't do any math, you can't even begin to understand SR or any of your other theories enough to really even have the right to an opinion on this subject matter. Learn what the facts are first just like your friend with the tiles. 

[Moronium]

Louis Essen FRS[ O.B.E. was an English physicist whose most notable achievements were in the precise measurement of time and the determination of the speed of light. He was a critic of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, particularly as it related to time dilation....In 1955, he developed, in collaboration with Jack Parry, the first practical atomic clock by integrating the caesium atomic standard with conventional quartz crystal oscillators to allow calibration of existing time-keeping.  He came to be known as "the father of atomic time."

 

Essen said that for decades he had just blindly accepted the validity of SR.  He also said that when he was in college "nobody" understood it, and just gave up trying to.  They just did the math they were told to do and passed the course.

 

Then he did a thorough analysis of Einstein's 1905 paper, and after doing so, wrote a couple of critical articles which were devastating for SR.  He also said that he was informed that his career would be over if he persisted.

 

Thereafter he was just ignored.  He died in 1997.

 

In 1971 he published The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis,questioning Special relativity, which apparently was not appreciated by his employers. Essen said in 1978: "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Essen

Edited March 4, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

RELATIVITY - joke or swindle?

 

ESSEN, L (1988): Electronics & Wireless World, p. 126-127, February 1988

 

Some of your contributors find it difficult to accept my contention (WW October, 1978) that Einstein's theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors...

 

But there have always been its critics: Rutherford treated it as a joke; Soddy called it a swindle; Bertrand Russel suggested that it was all contained in the Lorentz transformation equations; and many scientists commented on its contradictions.  

 

These adverse opinions, together with the fact that the small effects predicted by the theory were becoming of significance to the definition of the unit of atomic time, prompted me to study Einstein's paper.

 

I found that it was written in imprecise language, that one assumption was in two contradictory forms and that it contained two serious errors....I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science.  Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle.  

 

Why have scientists accepted a theory which contains obvious errors and lacks any genuine experimental support?

 

It is a difficult question, but a number of reasons can be suggested.  There is first the ambiguous language used by Einstein and the nature of his errors. Units of measurements, though of fundamental importance, are seldom discussed outside specialist circles and the errors in clock comparisons are hidden away in the thought experiments. 

 

Then there is the prestige of its advocates.  Eddington had the full support of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society and scientific establishments throughout the world. Taking their cue from scientists, important people in other walks of life referred to it as an outstanding achievement of the human intellect.

 

Another powerful reason for its acceptance was suggested to me by a former president of the Royal Society. He confessed that he did not understand the theory himself, not being an expert in the subject, but he thought it must be right because he had found it so useful.

 

https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm

 

Essen had already stated another reason (as cited above), when he said;  ""No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects." In 1956 the physicist and philosopher of science, Herbert Dingle, had embarrassed the physics community by raising questions about SR that they could not satisfactorily answer.  A debate was conducted in the journals over the period of a year and a half.  Dozens of mainstream physicists chimed in.  Finally the journals announced that they would publish no further papers questioning SR, as it was "settled science."    Dingle was denounced as a "lunatic," and it became mandatory to dismiss him as a "crank."  Dissent concerning SR was forcefully repressed for many years after that. But in 1992 a physics professor from Harvard, Hasok Chang, wrote a book which made an exhaustive study of all the papers published in that debate.  He concluded that nobody ever answered Dingle's questions.  They just evaded answering by resorting to obscure, irrelevant "reasoning" and general hand-waving.

 

Someone asked Rutherford why, in light of the fact that SR was becoming widely accepted in Germany, so few British physicists accepted it.

 

He responded:  "The British physicists have too much sense."

Edited March 4, 2019 by Moronium