Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

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.

 

 

Marco, if you have anything serious to say about the impossibility of clock retardation (which I doubt), then post your comments in the thread linked below.  Read the last couple of posts made there first, and see if you can possibly understand them.

 

http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/34895-personal-topic/page-53?do=findComment&comment=370289

 

By "serious" I'm not referring to your fanatical commitment to your pet belief.  I mean anything of rational, as opposed to emotive, value.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Thanks Moronium for pointing out my links weren't working. I've corrected that. Now can you take your dog and pony show elsewhere. People are starting to talk.

[Moronium]

You mean I've been talking to myself the whole time.

 

You got it.

 

Thanks Moronium for pointing out my links weren't working.

 

 

I would have mentioned it sooner, but it was obvious from your text that the links were irrelevant, so I saw no purpose in looking at them.  I figured someone who cared would mention it to you eventually.  But, like I said, nobody cares.

[ralfcis]

Skip this post.

 

 

I'll be replacing old similar posts with these new ones which have similar text.

 

The theory is 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 not 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. Constant relative velocity causes illusory reciprocal time dilation and imbalanced relative velocity causes real 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 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. 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. The endpoints of these lines on Bob's axis are also .15 Bob years but this is a distortion of the depiction. For very .15 yr Alice ages during the time of imbalance, Bob ages 1 yr so (1-.15) x 4 = 3.4 which is the total Alice ends up ageing less than Bob. This correspondence of lines applies to all  of Alice's velocities between -c to  +c using this method. In the meantime here is the STD of the age difference for Alice's velocity change to 40/41 c  and 15/17 c return using purple and pink lines of causal simultaneity. The half speed for 40/41 c is .8c and the half speed for 15/17c is .6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/TEDrXucPvbLFc3jX9

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Skip this.

 

Some very interesting things happen if Alice decides to return to Bob at near -c or she chooses +c to fly even faster away from him than .6c.

 

You'll notice in the last STD, the faster Alice returns to Bob, the closer the spacing  and the more the half speed lines tend to a negative 45 degree slant. So at -c, they will all overlap the -c return velocity line. Hence Bob will be 8 and Alice will be 4 right after the turnaround point.

 

If Alice chooses to fly away from Bob at c at the turning point, all the half speed lines will be overlapping at a positive 45 degree slant from Bob at t=8. They will intersect Alice's velocity line at infinity so Alice will be infinitely older than Bob while he remains at 8. Here's the STD:

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PqxRygYdZoXR6C129

 

I've changed the ending here and put it in the next post.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

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.

 

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

 

SHOUTING it once, and then screaming it does nothing to prove your point. Nothing you've said in this hysterical outburst is even in dispute (at least by me).  It's not even relevant to make the point you're aiming at.  As I said at the outset:

 

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.

 

I agree that the theory is wrong.  I agree that the formulation is wrong.  He starts out with "ct" which starts a long way down the road from where Lorentz did.  He is treating time as a fourth dimension which gets turned into into a dimension of length, not time.  Only Minkowski does that.  Lorentz would not have any part of it.

 

So I agree with his conclusions, just not the totally unwarranted conclusion that you draw from it, i.e., that there can be no clock retardation.  You go halfway around the world to find some Arab off the street who you claim agrees with you, but he doesn't.  He doesn't say anything like that, and in fact denies it.  

 

Yet for you, the imaginary agreement of some Arab constitutes irrefutable proof of your counter-factual pet belief.  Do you also believe that we live in a geocentric universe?  I've seen many people who do, and they are just as devout, and just as adamant about denying the existence of any facts that might contradict them, as you are.  Maybe you should join up with them and undertake to spread that message, eh?  You would have more people who agree with you that way, know what I'm sayin?

Edited March 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

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.

 

 

The following excerpt is from an article published by the theoretical physicist Frank Tangherlini, famous for his "tangherlini transformations" (TT), in The Journal of Modern Physics in 2014.

 

As shown earlier, a linear transformation with the same form for the spatial coordinates as the Lorentz transformation (LT), and that allows for time dilation, but leaves simultaneity invariant instead of the one-way speed of light, predicts the same results as the LT for the usual tests of special relativity. Such a transformation is allowed by general covariance.

 

A complementarity between the invariance of the one-way speed of light and the invariance of simultaneity is discussed.  Using this transformation, interpreted as involving external synchronization, it is shown that two frames moving uniformly with equal and opposite velocities, v and –v relative to a third inertial frame, in which clocks are synchronized so that the one-way speed of light is c, can be related by a Galilean-like transformation with a relative velocity 2v / [1 - (v-c)2] (squared) 

 

 

https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2014032810410864.pdf

 

When he refers to the LT here, he is talking about the LT as modified by Einstein for use in SR, not Lorentz's original transformations.  He obviously claims (knows) that clock retardation is possible.  Why don't your read his paper and show where his math is wrong, eh?  There are other alternative transformation, such as those devised by Robertson, Mansouri, Sexl, Selleri, Lorentz, and others, out there, all of which are very similar to each other;  all of which are confirmed by all the known empirical facts; and all of which contradict the premises of SR. 

 

Use your expertise to prove all those wrong, too, while you're at it, eh?  If you can't do it, call up the Arab for help and hope he's not too busy making suicide bombs to assist, eh?

Edited March 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

But this is not the end of the story. Infinity is never the correct answer in physics. Infinities in physics must either cancel out or approach a real number limit. The real number limit in this case is 2. Alice choosing +c away from Bob at the turnaround means she will get to 2 yrs older than Bob during the imbalance period and stay only 2 yrs older so long as she stays at c. There are 2 ways to work out this answer.

 

1. Empirically:  If you do the analyses of Alice choosing .8c, 15/17 c, 40/41 c and .99969 c away from Bob, they intersect their half speed velocity lines (.5c, .6c, .8c and 40/41c) from Bob = 8 to Alice = 8.5, 8.8, 9.4, 9.92. It looks like the closer to +c she flies away from Bob, the closer her age difference approaches +2 (not infinity).

 

2. Mathematically:  It looks like the ratio of full speed to half speed velocity lines has something to do with this limit. Yes Y approaches infinity for both these velocity lines but their intersection is between a line that has Y infinity and another which has half Y infinity. This suggests the answer is 2 but I have not yet figured out how to cancel out the infinities using fancy math tricks.

 

Note: This final answer and analysis has been edited from the answer I gave last time. Relativity does not allow calculation of age difference in scenarios where Alice does not return to Bob (because of it's assumption that perspective time is real, (not illusion due to perspective), and defines the present (which is subjective and individual to everyone). I believe proper time is the true reality from which perspective reality follows. Proper time is not absolute time, it is also relative.

 

Here is the STD of Alice making velocity choices beyond +.6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/PMR7ACw48HLmgCRG9

 

The intersection points for .8c, 15/17c and 40/41c move farther and farther apart but so do the units on those velocity lines due to the increase in Y so the resultant trend in age difference doesn't go to infinity as Alice's velocity approaches c, it tends to the number 2. 

 

Here's the math for .99969 c which is not shown on the STD.

Y = 40.506

 

(x-3)/t = .9996952148735142c (3280/3281c)

 

x/(t-3) =40/41c (half speed of .99969c)

 

x = ((3 + 3(.99969))40/41)/(.99969 - 40/41)  =  243

 

t = (x -3)/.99969  = 240

 

t' = 240/Y = 5.92  add 4 (Alice's age at turning point) = 9.92 (Alice's age when Bob gets the news) and subtract 8 (Bob's age) and the age difference is 1.92 yrs Alice is older than Bob.

 

Just be thankful the math doesn't involve anything beyond arithmetic and basic high school algebra.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Hey, Ralf, here's a little math puzzle for you:

 

If you up a mountain for 1 mile at 30 mph, how fast do you have to go during a trip a mile down the mountain in order to average 60 mph overall?

Edited March 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Hey, Ralf, here's a little math puzzle for you:

 

If you up a mountain for 1 mile at 30 mph, how fast do you have to go during a trip a mile down the mountain in order to average 60 mph overall?

 

 

Since you seem to be having a little trouble I'll turn it into a multiple choice question to make it a little easier for you, eh?:

 

1.  60 mph

2.  90 mph

3. 120 mph

4.  the speed of light

5. None of the above.

Edited March 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Can't even hazard a guess, eh, Ralf?  Your widespread reputation as a certified math genius may suffer if you can't answer a lil ole puzzle, ya know?  Just haul off and take a wild-azz guess, eh? Pick a number.  Any number.  Between 1 and 5.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

No, not interested in proving the relativistic velocity combo law again to someone who won't accept it and is trying to use grade school arithmetic as some sort of nascent proof. Just leave math to the adults and believe what you want to believe; you're not in grade school anymore if you catch my drift.

Edited March 14, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

No, not interested in proving the relativistic velocity combo law 

 

Say what? This aint got nuthin to do with no combo law, eh, Ralf?  Any mathematician would know that   They would also know the right answer immediately.

 

All ya gotta do is just haul off and pick a number.  Any number  Between 1 and 5, can't ya see?  Well, between 0 and 6, actually, but surely you get the gist, eh?

Edited March 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Sure, but you first. You correctly answer any one of the past questions I posed to you, you'll get my answer.

[Moronium]

I answer all of your questions that have any meaning, Ralf.  

 

Now just answer the question.

[ralfcis]

You haven't answered any because none have any meaning to you because you need to possess the ability to understand for anything to have meaning. It's like an illiterate trying to read and declaring the symbols he sees on the page are gibberish. The inability to read math is a form of illiteracy. I don't want you to waste my time any further so I won't waste my time answering your question and go down your rabbit hole because you yourself don't understand the answer you're eventually trying to get from me. Don't bother to post where you're trying to go with this question because I don't care. I haven't even read it with any intention of answering it. I don't want you on my thread as I don't think you have anything of value to say except for mimicry of articles that may or may not have anything interesting in them. It's not you, it's me, I'm just not interested. Let's break up now.

Edited March 14, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

First you said that you could and would answer the question.  Now you just continue to duck, dodge, and evade an extremely simple question, eh, Ralf?  Yeah, that's what I thought you would do.  And I also knew that you would claim to be intellectually superior in the process.   You are the quintessential poseur.

 

Let's face it:  You have no clue about how to answer the question.   You don't want to expose your ignorance.  What else is new?

 

There's not even two, let alone 3, moving objects involved in this simple question, and yet you thought it was about the velocity addition formula  You only demonstrate that you have zero ability to reason, even when only the most elementary issues are involved.

Edited March 14, 2019 by Moronium