Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

I truly believe Einstein included length contraction into his theory to appease the followers of Lorentz. His guess to explain the MMX was that his inferometer must have shrunk in the direction of travel. But this dumb idea then spawned the Lorentz transform equations which gave us coordinate time which prevents us from actually deducing real time. Time flows, space doesn't, end of story.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

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.

That doesn't change the fact that without length contraction you need a linear relative velocity to time dilation formula for the speed of light to be the same in different inertial frames.

 

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.

Er what? Length contraction isn't permanent for the same reason time dilation is permanent, if they're in the same frame again then there's no time dilation or length contraction any more.

 

From the perspective of the inertial observer the difference in age is caused by the fact that the other observer was time dilated AND length contracted (cover less space and taking more to cover the same amount of space) while they were in relative motion.

 

From the perspective of the observer that accelerated the difference in age is caused by ending up back in the inertial observer's frame, a frame in which they themselves were time dilated and length contracted while they were in relative motion.

[ralfcis]

Ok, you can't read what I wrote without overwriting it so continue in your beliefs. You can't do any math can you so you'll never be convinced with my words which you'll only interpret the way you want. I'm busy unless you have a question that is not a statement.

[Moronium]

From the perspective of the observer that accelerated the difference in age is caused by ending up back in the inertial observer's frame, a frame in which they themselves were time dilated and length contracted while they were in relative motion.

 

 

Nice to see you acknowledge that the moving observer was, in fact, time dilated and length contracted.

 

Sorry to see you still don't understand basic cause and effect.  The effects of motion were not, and could not be, "caused by ending up back in the inertial observer's frame."  Where he "ends up" has nothing to do with causation.

 

From the perspective of the inertial observer the difference in age is caused by the fact that the other observer was time dilated AND length contracted (cover less space and taking more to cover the same amount of space) while they were in relative motion.

 

 

This is correct.

 

The "cause" is the same in both cases, so the part of your post that I quoted first is wrong  The cause is motion.  One's moving, one isn't.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Moronium

[A-wal]

Ok, you can't read what I wrote without overwriting it so continue in your beliefs. You can't do any math can you so you'll never be convinced with my words which you'll only interpret the way you want. I'm busy unless you have a question that is not a statement.

You think that the difference on their watches means that time dilation is permanent but length contraction isn't, and you still think you have a strong enough grasp of this subject to make corrections to it. :) Wow!

 

Screw this, I'm going down the pub to watch the football. COME ON ENGLAND!

[ralfcis]

An intellectual pursuit worthy of you I'm sure. Enjoy the game.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok let's try to explain what I'm after here. A conversation is a transaction. What I want from the transaction is either information I don't already know or an intelligent question that makes me think or possibly points out a mistake. What I offer in exchange is clarification of what I've written. If you're not interested in the subject matter and only want to parrot information for your own ego, I'm not interested in that transaction. If you can't back up what you have to say with math, I'm most likely not interested in what you have to say.

Edited March 22, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

 As I've said many times, if length contraction was real, then it would result in permanently thin astronauts ...

 

I suppose permanently thin astronauts are better than permanently fat ones! 

[ralfcis]

I should have said permanently flat but which side would end up flat if they're constantly moving in the ship. Now what will it take to get rid of you Amp? I have a feeling you actually like it nasty.

[Moronium]

You think that the difference on their watches means that time dilation is permanent but length contraction isn't, and you still think you have a strong enough grasp of this subject to make corrections to it. :) Wow!

 

You still think the GPS doesn't use a preferred frame theory rather than SR, Awol?  Or did you actually take a minute to look at the academic paper I spoon-fed to you?

[Moronium]

I should have said permanently flat but which side would end up flat if they're constantly moving in the ship. Now what will it take to get rid of you Amp? I have a feeling you actually like it nasty.

 

You can gain or lose weight, but you can never make up for lost time.  Like the man said, all effects of motion (time and length distortion) end when you quit moving.  They are both temporary, and neither is permanent.

 

If I stabbed you in the gut several times, Ralf, you would be both injured and scared.  When I stopped, the stabbing would stop, but not the fear.

 

Years later, you would still bear permanent scars, but you wouldn't still be scared.  Well, unless you knew I was around the corner, maybe, eh?

Edited March 22, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

 If you can't back up what you have to say with math, I'm most likely not interested in what you have to say.

 

 

You say this with pride, Ralf, but all it does is expose how limited your comprehension is.  Fortunately, you don't have to think at all in order to mechanically manipulate a math forumla.  At least that leaves you with something.

[ralfcis]

Don't read this, it will cause extreme cranial pain. It's an exercise in math pattern recognition as a note to myself.

As a side note I've noticed some amazing linear patterns in this table:

 

 

v c           v_h c     v_t c          v_ht  c   

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       

8/17           1/4        15/17     9/15     

5/13           1/5        12/13     8/12     

9/41           1/9        40/41     32/40    

0                0          1             1          

 

The table seems to follow this pattern above v=3/5.

 

v = (D-M) / D

v_h = A / B

v_t  = C / D

v_ht = M / C

N(A+B )=C

N (AB) = D-M

C = MX

 

There are several unknowns here but all are integers. You start off with any integer. For example I choose X =6.

So C = M6

Start with M=1 so C=6 so v_ht = 1/6

 

Plug that into the formula v_t = 2c²v_ht / (c² + v_ht²)

and you get .324324 repeating. Start multiplying that by prime numbers and you'll find 37 turns it into the integer 12. So 12/37 = .324324 repeating.

 

Now you know your initial guess of M=1 was wrong. M=2 gives the correct result.

 

So now you know C=12 and D=37 and D-M = 35 so v = 35/37

if N(AB) =35 and N(A+B )=12 then N=1 and A=5 and B=7 So v_h = 5/7.

 

This method can be used to generate an extensive table of whole number fractional velocities that result in other whole number fractional velocities without a lot of calculation involved.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

Here's some exceptionally simple maths for you.

Two observers start off together in the same frame and accelerate away from each other so they're now moving at half the speed of light relative to each other. The only way for the speed of light to be the same in both frames is if each observers are length contracted, time dilated or both in the frame other the observer.

You can't remove length contraction and still keep the same velocity to time dilation formula, that should be blatantly obvious because the time dilation combined with the length contraction of any object determines the speed of light relative to that object in its own inertial frame.


If they were length contracted with no time dilation then at half the speed of light each would be length contracted to 50% so that light moves twice the distance in space over the same amount of time, so when you change from the frame of observer A (where light is moving at half the speed of light relative to observer) to the frame of observer B you have to double the speed of light to account for the length contraction of this observer from the previous frame.

And so if you change from the frame of observer B (where light is moving at half the speed of light relative to observer A) to the frame of observer A you have to double the speed of light to account for the length contraction of this observer from the previous frame. With length contraction alone it's a linear progression of length contraction being directly proportional to relative velocity. At a quarter the speed of light each observer would be length contracted to 75% from the frame of the other observer, at three quarters the speed of light each observer would be length contracted to 25% from the frame of the other observer.


If they were time dilated with no length contraction then at half the speed of light each would be time dilated to 50% so that light moves the same distance in space in half the amount of time, so when you change from the frame of observer A (where light is moving at half the speed of light relative to observer) to the frame of observer B you have to double the speed of light to account for the time dilation of this observer from the previous frame.

And so if you change from the frame of observer B (where light is moving at half the speed of light relative to observer A) to the frame of observer A you have to double the speed of light to account for the time dilation of this observer from the previous frame. With time dilation alone it's a linear progression of time dilation being directly proportional to relative velocity. At a quarter the speed of light each observer would be time dilated to 75% from the frame of the other observer, at three quarters the speed of light each observer would be time dilated to 25% from the frame of the other observer.


If one of those observers then accelerates into the frame of the other observer then the other observer's watch will speed up and overtake their own from their perspective while they're accelerating so their watch will be behind the observer who stays in their frame, but they won't still be length contracted for the same reason they won't still be time dilated. Their watches will be running at the same rate again, it's just that the watch of observer that accelerates into the other frame will be behind the other observer's watch because of the combination of being time dilated AND length contracted from this frame before they accelerated into it.

Edited March 23, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

Why are you bugging me with your statements. Length contraction is not the only way and if you knew any math you'd be able to see it. I read like about 2 sentences so save your breath. Read my thread if your're interested in either learning something new, finding a flaw in my argument or piss off. I'm not interested in revisiting something I discounted about 5 years ago.

 

We can continue where I left off on the other thread which is full of dogma garbage but not here. My last post there was for you two guidos to answer.

 

Post 989, did you read it?

Edited March 23, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

We can continue where I left off on the other thread which is full of dogma garbage but not here. My last post there was for you two guidos to answer.

No thank you. If you really think that time dilation is permanent and length contraction isn't because there ends up being a difference in time on their watches and don't realise that the time difference comes from a combination of time dilation and length contraction or think that you can get the same time dilation to relative velocity formula from SR without including length contraction then I'm done.

Edited March 23, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

I think none of what you said and you've said you were done I don't know how many times. If you're done, no need to keep repeating you're done just go away and don't keep coming back. Argue with Moronium if you just want to engage with someone where you can both talk past each other.