Relativity And Simple Algebra

[A-wal]

...and you've said you were done I don't know how many times.

Huh? That was the first time I said I was done, but I suppose this is the second now.

 

I think none of what you said

Bullshit you didn't.

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.

LOL, this is hilarious!

Edited March 23, 2019 by A-wal

[ralfcis]

Yes it is. Another person who can't read>

 

1.  If you really think that time dilation is permanent. No I don't, I think proper age difference is permanent and I've said it has nothing to do with time dilation.

2. length contraction isn't because there ends up being a difference in time on their watches . Nope, length contraction isn't because there is no permanent form of it like there is for time. 

3. don't realise that the time difference comes from a combination of time dilation and length contraction . I don't realise that because it isn't true. I'm not sure if you even know there are 3 different types of "time difference", time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference. Which are you referring to? In any case, none are dependent on length contraction.

4. think that you can get the same time dilation to relative velocity formula from SR without including length contraction then I'm done. So you're not familiar with the formula t=Yt'. Not one mention of length in that formula. What's your formula?

5. Screw this, I'm going down the pub to watch the football. I took that to mean you were leaving but you keep coming back.

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

If you really think that time dilation is permanent. No I don't, I think age difference is permanent and I've said it has nothing to do with time dilation.

You think the difference in age of two observers if one accelerates away and comes back to end up in the same frame has nothing to do time dilation, wow.

 

Nope, length contraction isn't because there is no permanent form of it like there is for time.

:) The difference on their watches is the permanent form of length contraction combined with time dilation, this is really basic stuff.

 

don't realise that the time difference comes from a combination of time dilation and length contraction . I don't realise that because it isn't true. I'm not sure if you even know there are 3 different types of "time difference", time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference. Which are you referring to? In any case, none are dependent on length contraction.

Wow, so you don't realise that covering less space (length contraction) over a greater amount of time (time dilation) is what causes the observer that accelerates to end up younger and that without length contraction time dilation would have to be greater for the speed of light to remain constant in all inertial frames..

 

think that you can get the same time dilation to relative velocity formula from SR without including length contraction then I'm done. So you're not familiar with the formula t=Yt'. Not one mention of length in that formula. What's your formula?

Square root of 1-v^2/c^2. That's not what it would be if there were no length contraction. Time dilation would be 75% rate at .25c, 50% at .5c, 25% at .75c, it would be a straight linear progression without length contraction. That really should be obvious.

 

Screw this, I'm going down the pub to watch the football. I took that to mean you were leaving but you keep coming back.

Football matches last 90 minutes excluding half time, they don't last forever.

 

Okay, now I'm done.

Edited March 24, 2019 by A-wal

[Moronium]

Awol, despite being one of the most dogmatic and bigoted posters I've ever seen, I will say that you tend to think logically and systematically.

 

As such, you can never effectively communicate with Ralf.  His thinking is utterly non-systematic and devoid of any regard for consistency, comprehensiveness, coherency, or contradiction.  He takes a discrete premise, here and there, and from that he fallaciously infers some conclusion that is logically unwarranted, but which he then deems to be beyond question.  Then he does it again, and again, and again.

 

He ends up with a complete hodge-podge of incoherent and inconsistent conclusions that he regards as being indisputable.

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

You'd know what I think if you'd just read but either too gd  or too gd lazy. So are you done, done, done and not coming back? Will you be taking Moronium with you? Maybe enter some remedial reading courses together.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[A-wal]

Awol, despite being one of the most dogmatic and bigoted posters I've ever seen...

I only believe in what makes sense. I call out the bullshit that is the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc.

 

You'd know what I think if you'd just read but either too gd  or too gd lazy. So are you done, done, done and not coming back?

Yes that was my last post. Oh FCUK!

[ralfcis]

That was the first time I've seen you acknowledge you're own BS. I answered 5 of your wrong answers and you don't ever acknowledge you were wrong. Here they are again in case you forgot:

 

 

1.  If you really think that time dilation is permanent. No I don't, I think age difference is permanent and I've said it has nothing to do with time dilation.

2. length contraction isn't because there ends up being a difference in time on their watches . Nope, length contraction isn't because there is no permanent form of it like there is for time. 

3. don't realise that the time difference comes from a combination of time dilation and length contraction . I don't realise that because it isn't true. I'm not sure if you even know there are 3 different types of "time difference", time dilation, doppler shift ratio and age difference. Which are you referring to? In any case, none are dependent on length contraction.

4. think that you can get the same time dilation to relative velocity formula from SR without including length contraction then I'm done. So you're not familiar with the formula t=Yt'. Not one mention of length in that formula. What's your formula?

5. Screw this, I'm going down the pub to watch the football. I took that to mean you were leaving but you keep coming back.

 

Maybe screw this means something else in your english. In ours it doesn't mean I'm coming back after the game, it means I'm done. You lack integrity. To be honest I got you confused with Sluggo. He also said he was done. 

 

In #4 you're right that Y has v which is x/t but it's not x'. So there's no mention of x' which is length contraction.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Usually when I wake up every morning I gain clarity on what happened the day before. Now I'm not really sure what Awal is talking about because his terms seem imprecise and different from mine but he reminded me that I was saying roughly the same thing as he not more than a few posts back. Lines of length contraction which are the x'-axis in relativity are also lines of simultaneity which I call lines of perspective simultaneity. (Since I have both perspective time and proper time, I also have lines of proper simultaneity which relativity does not recognize.) 

 

I had been touting a theory a few posts back that the time that disappears from Alice's clock is equivalent to a time value for the distance and velocity she's separating from Bob. Relativity of simultaneity has a similar idea; It's like a time bank that doesn't appear on Alice's clock. For every year Alice travels away from Bob at .6c, she is losing .25 yrs from her clock into this time bank of relativity of simultaneity. So at the turnaround point t'=4, she is supposedly 1 yr younger than Bob but Bob is also supposedly 1 yr younger than Alice due to relative velocity. (If you add the equivalent time of vx, to the time on their watches, you can see their total time is the same.) I say that's all illusion but relativity says they're both right because subjective, individual perspective time is what's defined as reality in relativity. (There is no physical requirement for this assumption except Einstein said so.)

 

Suddenly, at the turnaround point, Bob's "reality" of being 1 yr younger than Alice evaporates into thin air and Alice's "reality" becomes the really real one. (C'mon,  counter-intuitive doesn't mean correct.)  Her inbound leg of the journey starts off with her being 1 yr younger than Bob due to her time bank savings accumulated during her outbound leg. Well this isn't true for me or relativity. At the turnaround point, relativity enters a stage where the Rindler metric separates from the Minkowski metric and Alice is allowed to travel faster than c because her constant relative velocity is now in an accelerating frame while Bob is still in a relative velocity frame. During this time, Alice starts ageing less than Bob all the way until they re-unite and Alice ends up ageing 2 yrs less than Bob. My theory agrees on the start of the age difference but it ends much sooner once Bob and Alice re-sync their relative velocity. During the time of imbalance, from when Alice makes a change to their mutual relative velocity until Bob catches up with that new reality, Alice will go at twice (due to her Doppler shift ratio) the normal velocity through time (2c) thereby ending up 2 yrs younger than Bob at t=8 and t'=6. Similar idea but much easier to calculate, much sooner results and applicable to any change in velocity without the prerequisite to re-unite with Bob. 

 

Now my previously faulty view was in order to determine the age difference, each leg of the journey could be viewed as independent from the subsequent one (which not even relativity accepts). Alice lost a year for her first leg and since she also lost a year for the 2nd leg, she ended up 2 yrs younger than Bob at re-unification. Right answer, wrong thinking. As Moronium would conclude, math can lead you astray so don't use any math under any circumstances even though the govt forces you  at tax time. Just use your gut and guess at how much you owe because you're gonna make mistakes anyway. So kids, stay away from school, especially crystal math.

 

There are many ways to get the right answer for age difference with wrong thinking in relativity. You can derive an answer using the swing of Alice's line of simultaneity from t=3.2 to t=6.8 at the turnaround point like Brian Greene wrongly does in his video course. You can derive the answer by using GR where Alice's acceleration at the turnaround is equivalent to a gravitational field and so she ages less. Seems right, but it's also wrong. You can derive the answer by declaring acceleration is absolute motion which means she is allowed to be the preferred frame and the only perspective that's real is her own. All these methods and more are dependent on where you got brainwashed but none are correct. Only mine is correct because it gives answers for any velocity change, not just for reunification scenarios, and it gives a clear reason for reciprocal time dilation and age difference based on the new emergent spacetime theory (spacetime is emergent from information)  that I just learned about (I had independently come to the same conclusion so . .).

Edited December 20, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

All these methods and more are dependent on where you got brainwashed but none are correct. Only mine is correct because it gives answers for any velocity change, not just for reunification scenarios, and it gives a clear reason for reciprocal time dilation and age difference based on the new emergent spacetime theory (spacetime is emergent from information)  that I just learned about (I had independently come to the same conclusion so . .) 

 

 

You would make an interesting case study for a psychologist, Ralf.

 

From nowhere you concoct a conclusion which is not only contrary to all empirical evidence, but which is also logically contradictory.  Then you purport to prove it, so that you can demand that a nobel prize be awarded to you.

 

Psychotics often show a similar type of thought-processing and the same delusions of grandeur.

[ralfcis]

You seem compelled to comment on everything you know nothing about. What would your psychologists have to say about that because I'd like you to be cured.

[Moronium]

I probably should have said nothing, but those kind of self-bestowed mantles of genius are always a little irking, ya know?

Edited March 24, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

If I was reading me, I'd be irked too. 

[ralfcis]

I'm just thinking about all the math I've got to chug through in order to wrap this thread up. I can't continue at the pace I've been going because everything else around me is being neglected. This could take another fn year to finish.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

If I was reading me, I'd be irked too. 

 

I get it, now! You don't read what you write! 

[ralfcis]

Neither do you. Maybe you'd learn something if you did.

Edited March 24, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Neither do you.

 

LOL, I read some of what your write, and it's all twaddle! Of course I skip over your idiot math, A-wal already explained to you why you need BOTH time dilation and length contraction to keep C constant in all inertial frames, and you ignored that in order to boast about your nonexistent math prowess, which is all you ever do! You actually believe that if relativity is correct, it implies that the returning twin should be permanently slimmer or skinnier or flatter, or whatever the hell, than the stay-at-home. Amazing!  :shocked:

[ralfcis]

I've finally figured out what Monotonium's problem is; why he keeps bellyaching that I make no logical or empirical sense. His brain can't articulate it so I'll do it for him. He can't distinguish the difference between facts and the explanation of facts. True, being a graduate of Wikipedia, his alma mater states there is no difference between a scientific theory and the fact it explains. That's the last time I give money to Wikipedia. It doesn't promote knowledge, it actually hinders the advancement of knowledge. It just arms stupid people with the ability to key-word search facts that they don't have the ability to filter or interpret cohesively. 

 

So in Moronium's case, if he believes Lorentz over Einstein, then his inferometer shrinking in the direction of travel is a fact. It contradicts Einstein's interpretation, er I mean fact. So Moronium's brain short-circuits when I say I accept the facts of relativity but not the theory. To him, it is one and the same thing. Ok, so now we know.