Relativity And Simple Algebra

[A-wal]

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.

This simply can't be true. Without length contraction the only way that the speed of light could be the same in all inertial frames is through time dilation alone so the time dilation would be a linear progression with relative velocity. So an object at .25c would be time dilated by .25 and so moving through time at .75 the rate of the observer, an object at .5c would be a time dilated by .5 and so moving through time at .5 the rate of the observer, an object at .75c would be a time dilated by .75 and so moving through time at .25 the rate of the observer, etc.

[ralfcis]

Why don't you read how I disproved that instead of telling me that can't be right because your brainwashing has told you so. I'm more than willing to go through step by step any specific questions you may have in a scientific manner. Quoting scripture to me is a waste of time, that's what Moronium does. I've gotten this far because I've questioned scripture so if you don't want to lose your religion, then don't follow the blasphemy I'm generating here. Einstein's assumption is not required to keep c constant from all perspectives. You don't want to believe that without even looking at the evidence is not my problem. I guess basic algebra must be the roadblock. Go back to the beginning and find a sentence you don't understand and instead of glossing over it, we can discuss it.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

Why don't you read how I disproved that instead of telling me that can't be right because your brainwashing has told you so. I'm more than willing to go through step by step any specific questions you may have in a scientific manner. Quoting scripture to me is a waste of time, that's what Moronium does. I've gotten this far because I've questioned scripture so if you don't want to lose your religion, then don't follow the blasphemy I'm generating here. Einstein's assumption is not required to keep c constant from all perspectives. You don't want to believe that without even looking at the evidence is not my problem. I guess basic algebra must be the roadblock.

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" :) You're a very angry person aren't you?

 

Why don't you just tell me how you think you can remove length contraction without affecting the velocity addition formula.

Edited March 22, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

Then why am I bothering to write all this stuff when you can't be bothered to go look it up for yourself. I'll help you understand if you put in the effort but if not, continue believing whatever you want. If you desire to look smart by being able to parrot and agree with what everyone else is parroting, then go ahead. But if you think you're revealing something to me that I've never seen before and will therefore convert me to your religion, then save your breath. 

 

The short answer is Y can be paired with any variable in an equation but I always pair it with either v or t. Relativity pairs it with t or x or m but never v. The addition formula deals with v, where do you see x in it? Next you're going to say the muon experiment can't be solved without considering length contraction. Go back and read.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

So do you think that an object moving at .8c will be time dilated to .2 rate then? If you think the answer (as in SR) is .6 then you need length contraction as well to make up the difference. I would have thought that was obvious.

Edited March 22, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

So you haven't read a single line then. No I use the equation c² = v_t²  +v². The faster you are observed to move through space, the slower you're observed to move through time. Anyway your arithmetic is partly off. .8c has time dilation of 60% because Y=5/3. No x in sight. Where do you get .2? Even the doppler shift ratio, if that's what your talking about, is 1/3.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

Yes it's 60% at .8c, that's what I said. It's 60% because that's what it needs to be when combined with length contraction for the speed of light to be the same in both frames. Without length contraction it would be 20%,

 

If you think it's 60% then you need length contraction as well or the speed of light wouldn't be the same in both frames. Again, obvious.

 

So you think you can remove length contraction without affecting time dilation and still keep the speed of light constant in different inertial frames then? :)

[Amplituhedron]

Yes it's 60% at .8c, that's what I said. It's 60% because that's what it needs to be when combined with length contraction for the speed of light to be the same in both frames. Without length contraction it would be 20%,

 

If you think it's 60% then you need length contraction as well or the speed of light wouldn't be the same in both frames. Again, obvious.

 

So you think you can remove length contraction without affecting time dilation and still keep the speed of light constant in different inertial frames then? :)

 

Yes, that is what he thinks. Really!

[ralfcis]

Ok I see what you're saying. You won't like my answer. c'=Yc. The entire frame is dilated from an outside perspective. I can do that because I consider perspective as illusion, not reality as relativity has assumed. Light is treated like any other velocity Yv. Let's use an example. when v = .8c, Yv =4/3 c (On an STD there is a ct axis which gives v and a ct' axis which is for Yv). So how can you go faster than c? You're not. Yv = x/t' because t=Yt'. I keep x invariant and shove all the dilation onto v through t. Alice knows the distance she travels is 4 ly at the start of her journey but she is able to cover that in 3 of her years. Relativity looks at it differently.  It brings in length contraction and says form her perspective she has travelled less distance. I say she travelled the same distance in her time (which is less than Bob's time). It's all about where you pair Y in an equation, it's not reality. I don't need that because c in her frame is still c from her perspective. Her ship isn't shrunk from Bob's perspective so he can calculate that he sees light speed in his time over her non-contracted distance as still c. But if he tries to calculate using her time over her non-contracted distance, he gets an answer of Yc. But who cares, he's altering the measuring tape and getting a different measurement. 

 

As I've said many times, if length contraction was real, then it would result in permanently thin astronauts once a change in velocity is made. No, only the effects on age are permanent. This says straight up that length contraction is made up. I'm pissed you made me repeat this because you've probably ignored it once again.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

The short answer is Y can be paired with any variable in an equation but I always pair it with either v or t. Relativity pairs it with t or x or m but never v. The addition formula deals with v, where do you see x in it? Next you're going to say the muon experiment can't be solved without considering length contraction. Go back and read.

 

 

Where does the Y come from, Ralf?  And what is it applied to? See a "v" in there anywhere?

 

You can explain "time dilation" in muon experiments without independently determining length contraction, but you'll never accurately predict the degree of it without using the entire LT, which includes BOTH time dilation and length contraction.  You can't solve for either t' or x' without taking velocity into account.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Oh great, all we need is Moronium to chime in and we'd have the three tenors all together except they wouldn't be tenors; more like 3 empty pots banging.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Here in mathematical shorthand: v=x/t. Yv=x/t'. Yv can be greater than c because Y can be infinity (there are no physical infinities though). Yv -> infinity does not mean v -> infinity, it still -> c. Relativity brings in v = x/t = x'/t'. That has no effect on the math but it does in popular culture. Einstein's great aha moment where he says in order for c to be constant from all perspectives, isn't fireworks going off, it's more of a dud v = x/t = x'/t'.

[ralfcis]

Sorry a-wal, you don't really deserve my nasty attitude, you are at least curious.

[Moronium]

You just keep playing around with those numbers, Ralf, any old which-way you want.   As I've said before, you have to have conceptual understanding (which you don't) before (not after) you can make any meaningful mathematical calcuation.

 

The math is derived from the concepts, NOT vice versa.  The concepts are NOT derived from the math. Something you'll NEVER understand.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You can explain "time dilation" in muon experiments without independently determining length contraction, but you'll never accurately predict the degree of it without using the entire LT, which includes BOTH time dilation and length contraction.  You can't solve for either t' or x' without taking velocity into account.

 

That said, you'll never be able to solve anything if you posit that time dilation is "reciprocal."  One of the two (muon or lab) has to really (physically) be moving relative to the other.  And it aint the lab heading up into the atmosphere to meet the (motionless) muon.  As between the two, the muon is moving (absolutely, not relatively).

 

If it could "see," a muon would see the lab's clock as moving faster than it's own (if it had a clock), not slower.  According to SR, it is the moving clock which slows down, and the lab clock aint the moving clock here.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Is that all for now because I've spotted another infinity crawl into my math and I have to get it to cancel out. 

 

In my example where Alice turns around at .6c, her doppler shift ratio of 2 during the relative velocity imbalance time is what causes age difference. Her time is really passing for her at 2c but she can't detect that so her time passage looks normal to her at c. Normally the time rate due to the doppler shift ratio is just an illusion but the universe brings it from illusion into reality so that when the time of imbalance ends, Bob's perspective will flip to a doppler shift ratio that matches the one Alice has been sending out to him since the velocity change. If she only ages 2 yrs during the time of imbalance and she's really ageing at double the rate, that's a total of 4 yrs that should have appeared on her proper time clock but only 2 do.

 

Let's look at some more examples of turnaround velocity choices. At a velocity change to .8c return, Alice ages 1.5 yrs at 3c which totals 4.5 yrs of which only 1.5 appears on her clock. At a velocity change to 15/17c return, Alice ages 1.2 yrs at 4c which totals 4.8 yrs of which only 1.2 appears on her clock. At a velocity change to 40/41c return, Alice ages .6 yrs at 9c which totals 5.4 yrs of which only .6 appears on her clock. At a velocity change to c return, Alice ages 0 yrs at infinity c which totals unknown. 

 

I drew a graph of this data and as Alice approaches c, her age total approaches 6 of which none appears on her clock. This is very interesting because I proved earlier that relativity's idea that a photon crosses infinite distance in no time is totally false. I also showed that a massless photon at c gives a different result than Alice at c. Alice's velocity through time goes to zero when her velocity through space goes to c. That doesn't happen for a photon, it's velocity through time is unaffected by its velocity through space. If it went to zero, we wouldn't be able to see any frequency of light because it's clock would be stopped. But we do see frequency so that must mean light's velocity through time is at the normal rate through time of c.

 

Light doesn't make a velocity change at the turnaround point so proper time can't be stolen from it the way it's stolen from Alice. Alice's stolen time allows the equation c² = v_t² +v² to function properly but light's equation must be different if v_t = c and v =c. The equation must be 2c² = v_t² +v² to work. This suggests that when Alice sends the signal to Bob at the turnaround and that it takes 3 yrs to cross 3 ly to get back, that's just the total for the velocity through space. There's another 3 yrs for the velocity through time which is a total of 6 yrs which equals the time that disappears for Alice at near c. Coincidence, I don't think so. This is just conjecture for now until I work out the math. Or I can just stick my finger to the wind  like Moronium does.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Thank you for your sympathy M. You're so lucky to not be burdened by math which allows you such clear vision of what is true. I guess I'll never unlearn and always remain stupid in your eyes. That is actually a very comforting thought.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis