Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

I agree. From the perspective of someone who is slow, the guy who isn't looks like he is. From this maybe you can finally start understanding what the word perspective means.

[Moronium]

I agree. From the perspective of someone who is slow, the guy who isn't looks like he is. From this maybe you can finally start understanding what the word perspective means.

 

Hahahahahaha, Ralf. "start understanding," eh?  That's rich coming from you.

 

I have understood what "perspective" means for decades.

 

But you don't understand.  

 

From the perspective of someone who is slow, the guy who isn't looks like he is

 

Wrong. No, the other guy doesn't "look like" he's slow (moving).  The observer posits it, that's all.  In the case of SR, an observer is strictly prohibited from thinking that he is the one moving.  Not because of what he "sees," but because of what he is ordered to think.

 

Nobody would ever look out the window of a moving train and claim that they were absolutely stationary while the entire earth moved past them.  They don't "see" that.

 

On the other side, it may "appear" to me that the sun is moving across the sky while I remain motionless.  But I still conclude, based on a mountain of solid evidence, that I am moving, not the sun.  Of course SR doesn't allow that conclusion. Screw SR, I'm going with physics and common sense.

 

The only reason you say that an observers always "sees" the other guy as moving is because that's what SR has told you that's what you "see"  a thousand times.  You've been brainwashed into believing it.  SR tries to pretend that its ridiculous "reciprocal time dilation" is based on "observation."  It aint.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

In the context of SR, the relative motion between two objects is not a matter of "perspective," in the common sense of the word, at all. It is a matter of a conscious choice, however arbitrary.

 

Let's say I'm on a ship at sea and know that I'm going 30 knots relative to the surface water.

 

Now I see another ship approaching (I know it's approaching because I'm getting blue shift on my radar gun rather than a red one) at the rate of 10 knots.

 

What do I know now about the speed of the other ship?  Nothing conclusive.

 

It could be coming at me at the rate of 40 knots, or It could be going only 20 knots to my 30,   If it's the first, then his clock has slowed down compared to mine .If it's the second, then my clock has slowed down compared to his.  How do I determine this?

 

With SR, it's simple, the answer is always the same.  I NOT going 30 knots, I am stationary.  My speed is 0.

 

All relative motion is then shifted to the other guy, so that means HE is travelling at 10 knots, which means the other guy's clock ALWAYS runs slower than mine.

 

Is that true?  Do I know that?  Is that what I "see?"  The answer to all 3 questions is "of course not."

 

That's not my "observation," it's just an assumption I am required by SR to make.

 

Again, it's not a matter of "perspective."  It's a matter of adhering to the rules, no matter how contrary to reality they may be.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Let's say that I know I have been maintaining a uniform speed, but I take another radar reading and find that our relative speed is now 20 knots, instead of just 10.  That would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the other ship has slowed down.

 

Let's say I later take yet another reading and find that now our relative speed is 30.  That would necessarily imply that the other ship has stopped in the water.

 

Does SR allow me to use this knowledge?  Hell, no!  SR requires me to assume that the exact opposite is the case.  I must "conclude" that he, not me, is traveling at 30 knots and that I, not he, am the one who is stationary.  That alone tells you just how much SR has to do with physical reality.  Nothing.

 

Why does SR impose such bizarre requirements on what I am allowed to think?

 

Anyone who understands SR can answer that.  Unfortunately, few, if any, around these here parts understand SR.  They just parrot what they've been told, with the utmost certitude, but also with no real understanding of what they're saying or why they're saying it.  For this reason, it is impossible for them to ever detect any inconsistencies or contradictions in the claims they are making.  Parrots have no such insight or understanding, they just talk. Usually LOUDLY.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Amp I can tell you're bluffing and just parroting words. As soon as anyone starts throwing in big words to try to show how smart they are, they're just throwing smoke bombs to try to end the discussion and think they've somehow won. If you really know what you're mouthing then you can explain why Alice's acceleration at the start of a spacetime path throws her into a 2nd inertial frame with no detectable permanent age difference but if she starts on a flyby of earth at full speed and then turns around at some point throwing her into a 2nd inertial frame at a distance, now there's age difference. Fell free to link a serious mathematical video on the two different types of metrics involved.

 

PS. There are examples of clock info handoffs, instead of acceleration and turn around, where neither of the people handing off the clock info experience age difference with Bob back on earth but their clock info does. Can info alone experience a change of inertial frame because I don't see any inertia involved in this example.

 

Please Moronium don't answer, you're back on ignore and I hope everyone reading this thread also puts you on ignore. No one is entitled to their opinions if they're wrong; that's why school was invented.

[Amplituhedron]

There was an old nutter named Ralfcis, 

His brain much thicker than molasses;

She set out one day — what a pity!

To overthrow relativity,

And merely spewed flatulent gases.

[ralfcis]

That's what I thought, no answer, just another poser.

Edited March 10, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

That's what I thought, no answer, just another poser.

 

 

Just another in a long line of blowhards whose mouths are writing checks that their azz can't cash, eh, Ralf? They seem to be a dime a dozen around here.  After they're exposed as the poseurs that they are, they generally loudly declare victory and then slink away, never to return.

 

There's one exception, though.  You, Ralf.  Despite repeated exposure and self-embarrassment, you just keep coming back.

Edited March 10, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Ok I'm going to take everyone into the back room where I make the sauce. This is where the math magic happens.

 

The theory is proper age difference occurs between the time one party makes a change in velocity and the other hears about it. Before and after that time, both are engaged in the same relative velocity but during, it takes 3 yrs for the news to reach Bob. so he's still going at the initial relative velocity while Alice is going at the new. They are no longer experiencing reciprocal time dilation and this mathematically results in permanent age difference.

 

They were both experiencing reciprocal time dilation up until their proper times were both 4. Bob didn't get the news of the change until his proper time was 8. So the time of relative velocity imbalance was 4 Bob years. The intersection of Alice's return velocity line with her half speed velocity line from Bob's t=8 and x=0 coincides with Alice's proper time at the end of the imbalance period. Hence Bob's proper time 8 minus Alice's proper time at the end of the imbalance period is the proper age difference. This determination happens long before they re-unite and remains the same for as long as they fly at constant relative velocity after the imbalance period. No age difference happens during constant relative velocity and it only accumulates during the relative velocity imbalance period. 

 

So how do we calculate the intersection points of where the imbalance period ends? That's just plain old algebra which no one seems to be able to do anymore. Let's do an example for Alice returning at 40/41 c. Those who know how to operate a slide rule know that equals .9756c. The slope of Alice's velocity line is 40 distance units over 41 time units and it intersects Bob's axis at t=8.075 because 3/3.075 = 40/41. Hopefully we know how to calculate Y for 40/41 c.

 

Y=c/sqrt(c²- (40/41)²) = 41/9

 

It's easier to work in fractions because rounding off causes huge errors. Here's a list of popular fractions of c and their fractional Y's:

 

40/41 c    Y= 41/9

15/17 c    Y= 17/8

4/5 c        Y= 5/3

3/5 c        Y= 5/4

5/13 c      Y=13/12

 

I noticed the denominators of the velocities equalled the numerators of the Y's but this is just a fluke.

 

So to find Alice's age when she re-unites with Bob, divide 3.075 by 41/9 and add it to 4 = 4.675. The age difference using relativity's method is 8.075 - 4.675 = 3.4.

 

We use this number to figure out where Alice's half speed velocity line intersects Alice's velocity line  and it's 8- 3.4 = 4.6. The alternate method using algebra to find the intersection is more involved but doable for Alice's lines that don't intersect Bob.

 

So you need to divide this line into 4 equal sections to correlate  Bob's 4 yrs of imbalance time. .6 Alice units at 40/41 c is .6 x 41/9 = 41/15 divided by 4 = 41/60 = .683. You convert this into Alice yrs so 41/60/(41/9) = 3/20  = .15.

 

So Alice's times corresponding to Bob's times of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are 4, 4.15, 4.3, 4.45, 4.6. I was able to determine that how these Alice times correspond to Bob times is through lines that are the half speed of the original .6c relative velocity between the two. This correspondence applies to all  of Alice's velocities between -c to +.6 but not all the way to +c. That's because this method is only a math trick to make calculation easier. Between +.6c and +c the original method applies and will be shown soon. In the meantime here is the age difference fr Alice's velocity change to 40/41 c and 15/17 c return.

 

I've replaced this STD in future posts.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[fahrquad]

Will you two get a f***ing hotel room already, ferchrisakes!!!

[ralfcis]

I still have a lot more math to spew. I have to do Alice between .6c and c. Then Alice going out at different initial velocities. Then Bob between 0 and c away from Alice. Then Bob going towards Alice. Then combinations of both bob and alice changing velocities in proper simultaneity. This could go on for months because I have to check for mistakes or find even simpler ways to do it (I don't think it can get simpler).

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[fahrquad]

That's fine, just find a darned science forum somewhere to...oh, umm, carry on.

Edited March 11, 2019 by fahrquad

[ralfcis]

Skip this, my simpler math method was also a bust.

 

Oops I spoke too soon, I've just seen a simpler way. I'm going to have to start over and eventually delete most of this stuff. Yes everything from post 343 will be replaced with even simpler math. I'm pretty sure that will be rock bottom, the simplest possible method.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

You never fail to continue to make claims that are contrary to all empirical experiments, Ralf, no matter how many times you are corrected.  You're utterly hopeless.

Speaking of utterly hopeless, Moronium, I have found an interesting document that explains the Mathematical reasons why the Lorentz Equations are wrong. Mathematically wrong, and therefore impossible.

So, knowing that Lorentz and Poincare are your heroes, I thought you would like to read it.

 

Now that its certain that there can be no possibility of applying any Lorentz transformation to anything in the real world, what will be your next move?

Here's the link:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0456v2.pdf

[Moronium]

.

 

Speaking of utterly hopeless, Moronium, I have found an interesting document that explains the Mathematical reasons why the Lorentz Equations are wrong. Mathematically wrong, and therefore impossible.

So, knowing that Lorentz and Poincare are your heroes, I thought you would like to read it.

 

Now that its certain that there can be no possibility of applying any Lorentz transformation to anything in the real world, what will be your next move?

Here's the link:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0456v2.pdf

 

 

Heh, it's now "certain," eh?  Because some Arab writing crap on his own stationery took a picture of it and put it on the net?  No university affiliation?  Not peer-reviewed? Not published anywhere?  I wonder if he's pals with the chemist. This is a guy you want to front as proving how two of the top physicists and mathematicians of the last century are fools?  

 

Funny how little evidence it takes to convince some people how certain it is that what they to believe is right,  and how "impossible" it is for them to be wrong, eh?

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It can also be noted that even this Arab does not say no transformations are needed.  He purports to correct them, not eliminate them.  His paper is addressed solely to how the LT are applied in SR.  I agree that SR's formulation, (which altered Lorentz's equations) is wrong.  I've said that many times.

 

When properly applied in a preferred frame theory, such as Lorentz's, the LT reduce to galilean transformations, the speed of light is not constant in all inertial frames, and time is absolute.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

The math shows that there is no need to include any gamma adjustment to the standard galalian transformations from one frame to another.

No need.  Its not necessary.

 

Why is it there?

 

Please show where this Arab has made mistakes in his Math.

That is the best way to settle this.

 

He has shown where gamma is not required, and if it is used, it will create errors.

 

So the best response would be to show where he has made mistakes in his math.

And why the mistakes of L and P's math that he points out, are not really mistakes after all.