Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

The math shows that there is no need to include any gamma adjustment

 

 

 

Maybe you should read it again.

[Moronium]

That is the best way to settle this.

 

 

Naw, I think the best way to settle this is to get the Arab (call him up, his phone number is right there) and the Chemist together, and have them present a joint paper to the Academy of Science and have the world succumb to their irrebuttable reasoning, eh?

 

True, they have refused to respond to the Chemist's many letters so far, but with the Arab at his side I'm sure they'll call a nationwide conference and invite every physicist in the country to attend and be enlightened, ya know?

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

Maybe you should read it again.

I did, still cant find where he still needs a gamma adjustment.

Please provide the page and paragraph so I can check it.

[Moronium]

I did, still cant find where he still needs a gamma adjustment.

Please provide the page and paragraph so I can check it.

 

 

Read section 1.5

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Skip this dead end.

 

Hahahaha I was able to resist peeking at what the mathless M's had to say so I will continue unfazed.

 

Start again.

 

Physics is the correlation of patterns in physical phenomena to mathematical pattern recognition resulting in mathematical formulae. Here is a depiction of time dilation from Alice's perspective using her lines of perspective simultaneity at .6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gWZK3NrEv6RmY6xZ8

 

You'll notice the turnaround point causes a sweep of lines while the slope of the lines of perspective simultaneity changes. (Perspective simultaneity is the same as relativity of simultaneity.) You'll also notice the top is the mirror image of the bottom. 

 

Here is a depiction of age difference using lines of causal simultaneity.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/wE9YpinvSyjMEt6aA

 

Causal time has no perspective; there's no ambiguity of what event happened first. It may join all the same sync'd proper times but it is not a universal or absolute or Newtonian time but it is instantaneous with the speed of light delays stripped away and time laid bare. When one initiates a change in relative velocity, causal time is disturbed between the two parties. The result of the disturbance is that the purple lines of causal simultaneity is their spacing changes during the time of relative velocity imbalance and changes again after a new constant relative velocity is established between the parties.. (The green half speed lines of perspective simultaneity are drawn in to show they are the same as the purple lines.) The changes in spacing between the lines corresponds to shifts in the rate of causal time due to Alice's change in relative velocity and then Bob and Alice later agreeing on that change. A change in rate of time is a change in causal velocity through time but people have a real problem in understanding that time has a rate or velocity through time (ct'/ct). They just can't get that looking at a movie in fast forward or slow motion is looking at it through 2 different velocities through time and that the normal rate of time (pressing the play button) is c through time. You can watch a 2hr movie in an hour at fast forward and you can see Alice's televised motion at twice the speed of light time rate through time when she's going at .6c through space in the exact same way.

 

The numbering of Bob's time line is not affected by  the disturbance in causal time so reciprocal time dilation is unaffected. But causal time uses a distorted numbering (purple numbers) of Bob's time line. It starts out the same but the change in relative velocity by Alice causes Bob's time numbers to change according to what was seen in the large STD using half speed lines of reciprocal simultaneity to determine age difference. Notice the swing of the purple line slope does not cause any age change in Bob throughout the swing. This means acceleration has no affect on ageing at the causal time level. 

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/5qNdxqSjDE4rRvAy5

 

Here is an STD with Bob's blue lines of perspective simultaneity, Alice's red lines of perspective simultaneity, the green lines of half speed perspective simultaneity (difficult to see because they overlap all but 2 of the purple lines), and the purple lines of causal simultaneity which is independent of perspective.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I just noticed an answer to one of my long term relativity questions (that relativists just don't or can't answer). They often parrot the words that  acceleration doesn't result in age difference. I often wondered what is the minimum rate of acceleration that doesn't cause age difference. If Alice took a leisurely round  trip accelerating the whole time, surely relativity wouldn't insist she arrived the same age as Bob because there was only acceleration and no constant velocity the whole time? Surely acceleration is the same as a summation of instantaneous velocities along the way which could be averaged out into a constant relative velocity for both legs of her journey?

 

As usual, relativity likes to obfuscate the truth by using imprecisely defined terms. Acceleration has about 4 different meanings in relativity but the one they're using here is instantaneous acceleration does not result in age difference. As you can see from the swing in my purple line of causal simultaneity at the turnaround point, neither Bob nor Alice age; they're both still 4 at the start and end of the swing because no time passes if the acceleration is instantaneous. This is not true for the swing of Alice's red line of perspective simultaneity; she remains 4 but her perspective of Bob's age swings from 3.2 to 6.8. His age doesn't really swing like that which is just one more proof that Einstein's assumption that perspective present is reality and not illusion is dead wrong and his theory should be revoked on those grounds alone.

Edited March 11, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Another thing I noticed is the depiction of Alice's return trip doesn't need to end at earth at all. She could just flyby because there is absolutely nothing special about re-uniting with Bob as relativity insists. The determination of her age difference was complete the second Bob got news of her velocity change. After that, their age difference doesn't change so long as neither makes another velocity change. Age difference is established  before, during and after the flyby of earth. All those spacetime path rules requiring them to re-unite in order to make an official determination of age difference are for nothing. It must be embarrassing to be a relativist right now; 114 yrs this scam has been fallen for by all the best minds in the world.

Edited March 11, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

All your links go nowhere, Ralf, but nobody cares. Your ramblings are so convoluted, incoherent, and chock-full of misconceptions that they're not even wrong.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Another thing I noticed is the depiction of Alice's return trip doesn't need to end at earth at all. She could just flyby because there is absolutely nothing special about re-uniting with Bob as relativity insists. The determination of her age difference was complete the second Bob got news of her velocity change. 

 

Your first two sentences are correct, as I told you long ago.  But "relativity" doesn't claim any different.  Only fools making specious arguments in "support" of SR say that.  You can't understand the difference, because you don't understand the fundamentals of SR to begin with.

 

Your third sentence is hogwash.  "Getting the news" has nothing to do with anything.  A bomb under your house set to explode at 4:00 would not fail to explode because you don't know it's there  You can't even sense that you are contradicting yourself.  What else is new?

 

Spacetime diagrams are completely unnecessary to understanding the mathematics of so-called "time dilation."  Yet you spend years playing with them thinking they will provide "answers."

 

You're like a kid who says 2 + 2 cannot possibly be 4 unless and until he gets out a pencil and some paper and writes it down, complete with a + sign and a summation line.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

All your links go nowhere, Ralf, but nobody cares. Your ramblings are so convoluted, incoherent, and chock-full of misconceptions that they're not even wrong.

 Ok I peeked. I'm a sorry SOB for doing so. You know what I find  convoluted, incoherent, and chock-full of misconceptions is the idea a guy who admits he can't tell the difference between algebra and an albatross and even if he could, doesn't see my links, can self-assuredly claim that my ramblings are so convoluted, incoherent, and chock-full of misconceptions that they're not even wrong. If you can't see the entire argument, how could a normal rational man come to that conclusion without any evidence? This only showcases your ability to reason, not the content that you're critiquing. I can see my links fine. Does anyone else with the IQ above a turnip have problems?

 

PS. Did you not see the iumMoron Club thread I started for you and all your friends just down the hall. I think I'll put my last 2 posts there so you can have imaginary rebuttals to me there. You can be king of your own alternate universe.

Edited March 11, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

I can see my links fine. 

 

 

Too bad google can't, eh?

 

404. That’s an error.

The requested URL was not found on this server. That’s all we know.

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You mean I've been talking to myself the whole time. I click on the links. Maybe there's a privacy setting. Nope everything looks good.

Edited March 11, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

Read section 1.5

The paper explains that any THEORY that includes a factor (called Gamma) that must be used to change time (time dilation) so that would be SR and specifically LT (in any form) is BOTH WRONG IN THEORY AND IN THE DERIVATION.

 

Mathematically wrong, and nonsensical as a theory.

His conclusion after showing that the LT equation is theoretically and mathematically wrong, is  "both the theory and the derivation are wrong."

 

Even if you fix up the crap maths in the LT, then the result is that there is no length contraction or time dilation possible. Because even the corrected equations are contradicting the postulates and claims.

 

So you see, Lorentz Equation can not be used for anything, as its a mistake of logic and derivation.

 

But we all know that you just ignore anything that does not fit your own beliefs.

What is this crap about the Arab needing to apply to some peer group before his paper is valid?  Do you believe in science by committee agreement?

 

The Arab (which you seem to be using in a racist flavor) has made claims that your pet LT 

equation is wrong, so if you are half as smart as you make out, you should simply show where he is going wrong, mathematically.

 

But you cant, so you just ignore it.

[Moronium]

But we all know that you just ignore anything that does not fit your own beliefs.

 

 

Heh, speak for yourself, Marco.  The fact that clocks slow down with increased speed is empirically demonstrated millions of times every day by the GPS.  If the LT weren't taken into account, the GPS would be off by an additional 3 miles every single day.  And yet it is accurate to within a few inches, day in, day out.  Many other experiments also confirm this. You ignore all that and claim that clock retardation is impossible.

 

Your absolutely certain "proof?"  You think some Arab somewhere argees with you, even though he doesn't.

 

Oh, wait, I forgot.  You have further proof.  Some totally incoherent chemist who posts on Youtube between crack hits thinks every clock in the universe shows the same time that is displayed on his wristwatch.  He also "agrees" with you, eh?  So does his teddy bear.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Hey guys I moved your intrusive posts into the iumMoron Club just down the hall. Please go there and don't continue polluting my threads.

[fahrquad]

Hey guys I moved your intrusive posts into the iumMoron Club just down the hall. Please go there and don't continue polluting my threads.

 

Thanx, I was wondering where I was.  Sorry to intrude on your megalomania.

[ralfcis]

I consider it more as single minded purpose.