Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Moronium]

Both. Causal reality causes perspective reality which is just delayed causal reality.

 

Even in SR, as contradictory as it is, light travel delays have absolutely NOTHING to do with so called "time dilation."  Those are factored out before any prediction or explanation is given.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

I've said this to you a hundred times already, so why do I bother to repeat it?

 

Lorentz said that his concept of "local" time was a complete mathematical fiction which was convenient for making calculations only.  It had nothing to do with "true" time.

 

Einstein said that Lorentz's "local" (proper) time was the TRUE time.  That's when and where every contradiction in SR started.  Suddenly you have an infinite number of "true" times.  When everything is true, nothing is true.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Relativity states that reciprocal time dilation is an example of travelling to the future ageing less years to get there. I say that's an illusion of perspective because both can't age less than each other.

 

 

 

Of course you are completely right.  What you can't understand is that if you reject the "truth" of reciprocal time dilation, you have completely renounced every aspect of SR, including it's two fundamental postulates.  You think you can still selectively pick and choose what you want to believe is true about SR and still arrive at some coherent, self-consistent theory. 

 

Can't be done.  Neither time, motion nor simultaneity can be relative, unless you accept SR.  They are all absolute.  Of course if you do accept SR, then you end up with irresolvable inconsistencies.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

light travel delays have absolutely NOTHING to do with so called "time dilation."  Correct. I said velocity does because it changes the rate of the flow of information or the rate of flow of reality which is the rate of flow of time.

 

I've had to change this assertion in subsequent posts. Time dilation is not caused by a slowing of time or information, it is caused by relativity of simultaneity of when timing begins for comparison.

 

Einstein said that Lorentz's "local" (proper) time was the TRUE time.  That's when and where every contradiction in SR started. Agreed, Einstein based his theory on a false assumption but he was the greatest fluke artist of all time. He made bad guesses that  ended up with the correct answers so they assumed his guesses must have been correct after all.

 

Can't be done? Find an inconsistency in my theory then. I preserve relativistic facts but totally dump the theory that does such a bad job of explaining them.

 

PS Who are you and what have you done with Moronium?

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 Find an inconsistency in my theory then. I preserve relativistic facts but totally dump the theory that does such a bad job of explaining them.

 

Your "theory" is too inconsistent to even critique, Ralf.  Like I said, it's so off-base that it's not even wrong.

 

If you weren't such a megalomaniac, you would look at the alternate theories proposed by brilliant theoretical physicists which have been propounded and reasonably explained since before and after SR, including up until this very day.

 

For that matter, Poincare, long before Einstein, noted that you could construct an invalid subjective form of adherence to the relativity principle by treating Lorentz's "local" time as the "correct" time.  The only problem, he said, was that it wasn't correct.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Not interested, my theory is consistent because its math is beautiful. Math can only be right or wrong unlike physics interpretations.

Edited March 16, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Not interested, my theory is consistent because its math is beautiful. Math can only be right or wrong unlike physics interpretations.

 

Of course you're not interested.

 

1. First of all because you are a stone-cold megalomaniac who thinks he is the most brilliant person who ever lived.  You're infallible.

 

2.  Secondly because you have absolutely no clue about the relationship and differences between math and physics.  You think that because math gives you only one right answer is HAS to be the right answer for the external world.  Your naivete in that respect is astounding, but I certainly can't say you're alone in it.

 

3.  And you can believe all this because you are absolutely devoid of any understanding of, or respect for, fundamental logic.  You're as subjective and illogical as any perv who ever came down the pike.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Let me check. Nope, still not interested.

[ralfcis]

In a nutshell: Relative velocity has an effect on the reciprocal rate of flow of information or the rate of flow of perspective reality which is the rate of flow of time. I no longer subscribe to this.

 

Higher constant relative velocities result in slower perspective rates of time (the faster the relative velocity, the slower the perspective rate of time).  But when one participant makes a change in velocity, the two have mismatched relative velocities until the reality of the change makes it back to the other party. This mismatch in the relative velocities causes a mismatch in the reciprocal rate of flow of information (or the perspective  rate of flow of time) which results in permanent age difference at the proper time level between the two. Their perspectives of the age difference can all be accounted for by relativity from this proper time so it's no longer true that the age difference is indeterminate because perspectives don't agree on it or that a valid spacetime path has not been established.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Skip this, it's no longer what I believe.

 

I've just realized I've answered the age old question of what is time: Time is the rate of flow of information. Time delay does not affect the flow rate, relative velocity does and  changes in relative velocity cause changes in the relative flow rate that result in permanent age difference. Gravity acts the same on time as velocity changes as both are related to acceleration. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

I've just realized I've answered the age old question of what is time: Time is the rate of flow of information. Time delay does not affect the flow rate, relative velocity does and  changes in relative velocity cause changes in the relative flow rate that result in permanent age difference. Gravity acts the same on time as velocity changes as both are related to acceleration. Nobel please.

 

Don't count your nobel prize yet , the key to a nobel prize is to show that mathematically. Put that in math context over the manifold I posted earlier and you may be reach possible nobel prize status. Basically, take the proper partial derivative of time-space that shows it as a function of information and you'll be like Einstein. It is currently in (dx'/dx²),(dy'/dy²),(dz'/dz²),(dt'C/dt²C²) form in killing vectors don't feel afraid to play with it.

Edited March 17, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Moronium]

Basically, take the proper partial derivative of time-space that shows it as a function of information and you'll be like Einstein. It is currently in (dx'/dx²),(dy'/dy²),(dz'/dz²),(dt'C/dt²C²) form in killing vectors don't feel afraid to play with it.

 

 

He can play with math all he wants, and that won't prove a damn thing.  The claim is prima facie nonsensical.

 

I've just realized I've answered the age old question of what is time: Time is the rate of flow of information.

 

 

I guess that time was much different in the age of stagecoach, trans-oceanic shipping, pony express, etc., eh?

[ralfcis]

Yes and then time evolved to using telegrams to relay reality to us all. Much faster that way. The only thing I can't yet explain is why your brain hasn't yet got the message. Good questions though, they keep me on my toes and make me try to explain things in terms of what a very young child might understand but, obviously, I'm not quite there yet.

Edited March 17, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I've been away for a while because I've had a devil of a time with the math. This was from a few posts back to prove if Alice chenges her velocity from .6c to c away from Bob, she will age 6 yrs from 4 to 10 while Bob will only age 4 yrs from 4 to 8 during the time of relative velocity imbalance. It turns out my initial equation for v_h was about .5 c while it's the slope of the line of perspective simultaneity of slope 1/v_h that is the line which intersects the Alice's velocity line c. So let's start over:

 

In subsequent posts the number 3 is only applicable to this .6c example. It turns out to be the distance separation when t'=4. The equation will become more general.

 

Correction: my new formulas are ( x-3 ) /t = v/c and  x / ( t - 3 )  = c/v_h

 

I don't quite understand why each velocity is divided by c but it doesn't affect the numbers and makes the math really crisp. The time results end up without units though.

 

x = (t-3) / (v_h/c)

plugging in x = vt/c + 3

 

we get (t-3) / (v_h/c) = vt/c + 3

 

t(1-vv_h/c²) = 3(v_h/c + 1)

 

so t = 3/c (v_h + c)/ ( 1 - vv_h/c²)

 

knowing t'=t/Y and plugging in Y = (c² + v_h²) / (c² - v_h²) and v = 2 c² v_h/ (c² + v_h²)

 

t' = 3/c (v_h + c)(c²-v_h²)/ ((( 1 - 2v_h²c² / (c²(c²+v_h²))(c²+v_h²))

   = 3/c (v_h + c)(c²-v_h²)/ (c²+v_h² -2v_h²))

 The term (c²-v_h² ) that was causing infinity gets cancelled out so

 

we get t' = 3(v_h + c) /c

 

Bob's age is 8 and Alice's age is 4 + t'. So as v_h -> c, t' =6

QED

 

Here are some more numbers to play around with in the last equation

 

v c      v_h c   Age diff (Alice ends up older by)

1         1       2

40/41    4/5      1.4   

15/17    3/5      .8

4/5        1/2      .5

3/5        1/3      0

 

Now we can continue the math opening up new velocities of relativity's landscape that are forbidden by relativity to determine age difference. 

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

I forgot I was supposed to derive the equation:

 

(Y+ 1) = 1 / (1 - v_h/v)

 

Solving for Y we get

 

Y = v_h/v / (1 - v_h/v) or  Y = 1 / (v/v_h - 1)

 

I just stumbled on these equations and they turn normal equations with square roots and squares into simple fractions. The derivation is steered by knowing the final result in advance.

 

Start with 

 

Y = (c² + v_h²) / (c² - v_h²)

 

 = v_h (c²   + v_h²) / ((2c² - c² - v_h²) v_h )  

 

 = v_h / ((2c²v_h - v_hc² - v_h³) / (c² + v_h²))

 

 Knowing v = 2 c² v_h/ (c² + v_h²)

 

Y = v_h/ ( v - v_h)

 

So Y = 1 / (v/v_h - 1)

and Y = v_h/v / (1 - v_h/v)

and (Y+ 1) = 1 / (1 - v_h/v)

QED

 

This shows the mathematical diversity of just using v and v_h in equations instead of squares and roots.

Edited March 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

we derived t' = 3(v_h + c) /c

 

3 is the separation in ly between Bob and Alice when she makes a change in velocity. Let's call it X for separation at turning point.

 

So t' = X(v_h + c) /c

 

This equation is now more general. In this example of X=3, we've seen a table predicting Alice's age difference with Bob based on her velocity choices away from Bob:

 

v c      v_h c   Age diff (Alice ends up older by)

1         1       2

40/41    4/5      1.4   

15/17    3/5      .8

4/5        1/2      .5

3/5        1/3      0

 

For the same velocity choices towards Bob, we get a similar table:

 

v c      v_h c   Age diff (Alice ends up younger by)

1         1       2+2

40/41    4/5      2+1.4   

15/17    3/5      2+.8

4/5        1/2      2+.5

3/5        1/3      2+0

 

Both tables show a range from .6c to c. But what about changes from .6c to 0c? v = 0c is equivalent to v_t =c. v= .6c is equivalent to v_t =.8c. This is where we take advantage of the equation c² = v² + v_t² and see if the pattern in age difference continues between the range of .6c to 0c to -.6c.

 

Here is a table comparing v and v_t  (v_t = c/Y,  Y = 1 / (v/v_h -1), v = v_h (v_t/c +1)) The doppler shift ratio = v_ht depending on direction

 

v c           v_h c     v_t c          v_ht  c   Proposed age diff pattern

1                1           0            0

3280/3281 40/41    81/3281 1/81

40/41         4/5        9/41       1/9

35/37         5/7       12/37      2/12

12/13         2/3        5/13       1/5

15/17         3/5        8/17       2/8

4/5             1/2        3/5         1/3     

3/5             1/3        4/5         2/4        y+ 0

8/17           1/4        15/17     9/15      y+.5

5/13           1/5        12/13     8/12      y+.8

9/41           1/9        40/41     32/40    y+1.4

0                0          1             1           y+2

 

This table should allow us to use the age difference numbers for v from 3/5 c to c for age difference numbers from 3/5 c to 0c in reverse order. I'll need some time to verify this pattern.

 

PS. The equation v = v_h (v_t /c +1) gets derived like this:

 

Y = v_h / (v - v_h)

Yv -Yv_h = v_h

v_t = c/Y 

cv/v_t -cv_h/v_t =v_h

v - v_h = v_hv_t / c

v = v_h ( v_t/c + 1)

Edited December 26, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

If all this works out, it will show the perfect symmetry between velocity through space and velocity through time. Einstein made the assumption that the symmetry was between space and time itself so he mashed the two together into spacetime and made time into just another space dimension but it acts nothing like a space dimension. As a result of this mashup, both time and space conspire to keep c constant from all perspectives. All the math I've presented here, which explains all relativistic phenomena without contradiction, keeps space and time separate without any need for length contraction. Of course the only feedback I get is that it's all so wrong, no one even knows where to begin. They're right, no one even knows where to begin because no one knows very much. Both extremes in this debate, the relativists and absolutists, have their eyes shut tight. No way to reach them.