Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

...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.

 

 

In case you're wondering, Ralf, none of these comments are addressed to you.

 

I post them only for consideration of someone who may come along and take an interest in this thread (which is nobody, right now).  Who knows, Sluggo may have a response, but that's highly doubtful at this point.

 

Somebody who is capable of understanding them, ya  know?  That aint you.

 

Just carry on with your imagined detections of "prime number generators," eh?

Edited March 4, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Sluggo, like all relativists I've encountered just walk away from any discussion and come back months later repeating the same script as if no discussion had ever taken place. A science forum is supposed to be about informed discussion coming either to a consensus of understanding or an agreement to disagree, not a soapbox for wiki articles and not for parrots to display their plumage and expect praise to satisfy their fragile egos. I've only ever met 1 person I've actually had a discussion with

[sluggo]

Ralf; 

For a while I thought you were making progress. My  mistake. So much for 'the power of positive thinking'. 

There's so much distortion of the truth, from both of you, it's not worth anyone's time.

[ralfcis]

The further I go into the theory of relativity, the more I see it is mistakes and fluke and fraud that just happens to get the right answers. Yes I have no faith in how the theory explains things but I'm convinced through experimental evidence that the physical phenomena it woefully fails at trying to explain are real. However, I do believe there is a hidden version of SR that derives from GR that may be correct and it has nothing to do with the theory everyone is taught. This is where me and Moronium part ways because he doesn't even accept there are any physical phenomena (such as the universal speed limit is c) to explain. I will not engage in that argument.

 

So my last post gave me new tools to try to explain away infinity and instantaneous time in relativity. Physicists do not really believe in length contraction privately so the idea the photon sees the universe contract into a dot so it can traverse it instantaneously is just a lie from them. I've already shown in past posts that there is no need for length contraction to explain anything or solve any relativistic problem (such as the muon experiment for example). 

 

But now I have this new tool that the velocity through time and the velocity through space are just mirror images of each other and must both be considered at the fringes of 0 time and the speed of light axes on the STD. Here are the 3 major relations that the STD shows:

 

1. x/ct = v

 

This is the relative velocity the depicted stationary frame sees the other frame move at. But since the stationary frame's velocity is 0 as a result of the above formula, one can't claim the formula applies to Alice's view of Bob's relative velocity to her. The depiction is actually a depiction of absolute velocity. But there are ways around this limitation by expressing relative velocity in terms of reciprocal time dilation or reciprocal doppler shift ratio. I have another depiction method to actually show the relative velocity of an axis depicted as stationary but that takes reams of explanation on how that works and I will present it later.

 

2.  x/ct' =  Yv  which equals 1/slope of the ct' axis.

 

This is Alice's gamma velocity through space using Bob's or a common "stationary" frame such as Earth's  invariant proper space over Alice's dilated time. She is able to cross mutually pre-motion agreed upon stationary distances in very little of her time without having to resort to using length contraction explanations.

 

3. ct'/ct = v_t

 

This is the velocity of time for the moving frame. It's a time rate over the normal time rate to tell you how the moving time rate slows wrt the normal proper time rate. Relativists grudgingly admit this is a real thing but not in public because they are compulsive @#$#$. They won't call it the velocity of time through time but they will call it time dilation just to confuse things.

 

4. Hmmm there's a 4th relation I don't know what it is yet but it's connected to Y_tv_t. 

 

 

_{Anyway the point is whenever I run into infinity from the velocity through space equations, I can go around it by looking from the velocity through time perspective to get  answers that maybe make sense.}

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Typical response from a brainwashed relativist Sluggo. Moronium said the same thing about my interpretation of relative velocity. It's not even close and not worth my time to explain it  until we all found out he didn't have a clue  what he was talking about and he still doesn't. But at least we pinpointed where we part ways at the relativistic velocity combo law.

 

So I started him off on baby steps. What I'm saying can't be all wrong. I've at least spelled my name right. So what is the first statement of mine you come up against that you disagree with. I did that with your post line by line. You won't payback in kind or you can't payback in kind. I'm absolutely sure it's the latter. You have no grasp of the theory but on the other end of the spectrum from Moronium in that the theory has a total grasp on you. C'mon, try one baby step to understanding. I know, ouch, learning is sooo painful, ouch, it requires effort to come up with rational arguments to defend irrational beliefs, ouch, ouch. I have a feeling you're a highly educated uneducated man.

Edited March 4, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok, I finished the math analysis of a photon or Alice returning at c. I used an Epstein STD because it clearly shows what is going on. From Bob's perspective, Alice takes a year of his time for each light year she travels back. She takes none of her time for each light year she traverses. She ages at the normal rate but Bob doesn't see her age at all because he only sees her take an instant of her time ( 3 yrs of his) to travel all that distance. When she re-unites with Bob, she hasn't been all over the universe instantaneously, she's only travelled 3 ly but she hasn't aged doing that. 100% of her time has been converted into the time equivalent of the 3 ly distance separation between them and none has been counted on her clock. Time passes normally for her but only an insignificant instant of time passes normally for her. In that instant she would see, on her TV screen, Bob instantaneously age 3 yrs from her turnaround to their re-unification. The same is true for a photon travelling beside her. It does not traverse the entire universe instantaneously, just the distance it is seen to traverse. I still can't explain why we can see it's frequency if we also see time has stopped for it inside its own frame from our perspective.

 

Relativity uses length contraction and doesn't convert time into space so it will have a different explanation than the one I just gave.

 

PS. The math also showed me there is no way to push the 4 yrs Alice ages less than Bob onto Bob's age. In other words, Bob is 8 and Alice is 4 and I can't make that Alice is 8 and Bob is 12.

 

PPS. Here's the Epstein STD for anyone interested:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/nKF2TiuiL6nnSqRP8

Edited March 12, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I went to the physics stack exchange to get an answer to my question of why you can see the frequency of light (frequency being the reciprocal of time) even though time stands still within the photon's frame. As usual there is every answer under the sun to choose from but this one makes the most sense to me:

 

Light inches its way across the universe by alternately collapsing the magnetic and then its electric field through the electromagnetic medium of space. This alternation causes frequency and a resultant speed. The MM experiment proved you can't have a relative velocity to an electromagnetic medium hence you also can't have a relative velocity to the light which propagates due to that medium.

 

It may have nothing to do with the type of medium. It may just be nothing can combine its velocity to something already going at the speed limit. That is not true because the governor of this rule between matter slows the observed time slows down in order to increase relative velocity whereas this governor does not exist for interactions between matter and EM fields. Time does not slow from either perspective.

 

Without a relative velocity to plug into the equation for gamma (Y), the equation is invalid for determining whether time stands still for light.  In fact it doesn't because we can measure its frequency.  All we change with our velocity towards the light is the frequency of the light we see. The movement of the source towards us also only affects the lights freq, not its speed just as in the doppler effect for sound waves. We can measure our velocity relative to anything except EM fields so discussing what happens to Alice near c where her time slows to almost zero is not the same thing as discussing what happens to light because our relative velocity to light isn't c, it's always 0 as the MM experiment proved. So I don't know where relativists got this idea light is everywhere instantaneously across a pancaked universe. Most on that forum still hold this idea to be true. It's false.

 

PS. I went back and read a post from Popeye. He was right the gamma equation doesn't apply to light but wrong in that it does indeed apply to objects going at c in thought experiments.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The MM experiment proved you can't have a relative velocity to an electromagnetic medium hence you also can't have a relative velocity to the light which propagates due to that medium.

 

.So I don't know where relativists got this idea light is everywhere instantaneously across a pancaked universe. Most on that forum still hold this idea to be true. It's false.

 

 

The MM experiment proved no such thing.

 

Of course it's false, but it follows from the math.  Like you, that's where they get their "answers."

[ralfcis]

You can't read, you know nothing, they know nothing. The equation only applies to relative velocity between objects and they try to apply it to light like you try to apply simple addition to relative velocities. Applying the wrong formulae will result in wrong answers.

 

PS. When I said you can't read, that was wrong. You can't comprehend what you read.

Edited March 5, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Without a relative velocity to plug into the equation for gamma (Y), the equation is invalid for determining whether time stands still for light.

 

 

When it is claimed that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, what is that speed "relative to?"  The vacuum, maybe?

Edited March 5, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Yup the vacuum and we can't have a relative velocity to the vacuum ergo we can't have one to light either.

[Amplituhedron]

Is this thread some kind of bizarre performance art?

[Amplituhedron]

When it is claimed that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, what is that speed "relative to?"  The vacuum, maybe?

 

Relative to, um, everything? Maybe that's what "constant in all frames of reference" just means?   

[Amplituhedron]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Edited March 5, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Moronium]

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

 

 

Unlike all the physicists who debated him, you must be brilliant enough to answer Dingle's question, eh?  Here's the question.

 

 

"The theory [special relativity] unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible."

 

 

What's the answer, i.e., how is that possible?

Edited March 5, 2019 by Moronium

[Amplituhedron]

It seems Dingle may have been an Internet troll before the Internet or term “Internet troll” was invented. :lol: As  an incredulous J.L. Synge wrote to him, I believe in the late 50s: 

 

 

I could not decide whether to pursue the argument with you or let the matter drop, leaving the last word to you. But just yesterday I had a thought. What if Dingle is pulling the leg of the world? It is to me the most reasonable hypothesis to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to me. Knowing you as well as I do (and I know you much better after our recent correspondence), I cannot bring myself to believe that you are as stupid as you make yourself out to be. If my hypothesis is correct, I salute your sense of humour. No harm has been done. Printers have had good employment. My humiliation in having been taken in is swallowed up in my admiration at the way you have put the thing across.

 

 

What’s your excuses, ralfcis and moronium? Are you both trolls, too? Trying to pull the leg of the world?

[Amplituhedron]

What's the answer, i.e., how is that possible?

 

Ha, ha, ha, see Synge's letter to Dingle quoted above. Seriously, dude, are you really asking this in earnest? Can you really be that stupid?  :shocked: