Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

Hoo boy, I'll explain it again and again and again. At .6c separating the DSR = .5. This means when Bob and Alice take videos of themselves and broadcast the video to the universe, Bob and Alice will see each other move  in half speed slow motion. They see each others rate through time at .5c which is half the normal rate at c. They can directly compare the rates of the televised clocks they receive to their own clocks (they transmit). You can't directly compare time dilated clocks whose time rate is .8c which doesn't change whether they're separating or coming together. A DSR at .6c coming together is 2c which is double fast forward normal rate of time. This is an observable illusion unlike time dilation which is not observable. But during the time of velocity imbalance, this illusion becomes real for the person who initiated the velocity change. Real time disappears from her watch in an analogous way to how it disappeared from the Rolex in the ice bucket (but that was due to the watch, not due to time). What is the physical reason on how and why it disappears? I've also stated that. I want to test if you can read so you tell me. (Hint, it has to do with information and reality.) You're obviously not reading anything I wrote except scanning for words you recognize and then making your own narrative out of them.

 

I've since corrected this view. Time is slowed for the DSR due to clock information rate changed due to velocity. It is an apparent effect. Time dilation is due to relativity of simultaneity.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

This is an observable illusion unlike time dilation which is not observable. But during the time of velocity imbalance, this illusion becomes real for the person who initiated the velocity change. 

 

So what you call a "visible illusion" slows time?  But then it "becomes real," but only for one person?

 

I read your words, Ralf, but you're right--the meaning of them is incomprehensible.

 

What does the DRS do to time itself?  You're still just talking about subjective perceptions, not time.

 

As long as you think of "time" as changing, you are just an indoctrinated SR outcast.  You still don't understand the basic problem with SR.

Edited April 14, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

Your assumption is that time is universal so that's why you can't understand that it's relative between two people engaged in relative velocity. Re-read my stuff and ask me questions as you encounter confusion but I'm not going to endlessly repeat to someone incapable of following one statement to the next. If you can't suspend your belief that time is absolute and universal, then don't bother, you are irredeemable and this theory is not for you. Go play with Victor or Popeye or Awal or Amp or anyone else.

Edited April 14, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

 this theory is not for you.

 

That's probably the most accurate thing you've ever said, Ralf.

 

Carry on.

[ralfcis]

Sorry Moronium, your question is valid and the answer is far more complex than I thought. I started working on a complete start to finish example using only light signals but since perspective time is only an illusion, Bob's lines of simultaneity end up intersecting no real time on Alice's velocity line while his light signals do. Bob's view of Alice's time dilation is based on the illusion that Alice is still going at .6c away from him when in fact she has turned around (and my example involves a different return velocity at the turnaround).   There are no valid lines of simultaneity for Bob as defined by Einstein's clock sync method during the relative velocity imbalance period except if the outbound leg velocity = the inbound leg velocity (luckily this is the case for GPS satellites). I have to come up with a universal formula for proper time using light signals and then a secondary formula that derives perspective time from the first. This may take some time. So I think you instinctively smelled something was not as simple as I was claiming.

 

Around page 70 I was finally successful in accomplishing this task.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

.

 I have to come up with a universal formula for causal time using light signals and then a secondary formula that derives perspective time from the first. This may take some time. So I think you instinctively smelled something was not as simple as I was claiming.

 

Here's a suggestion, not that you'll take it, Ralf.  Ignore "perspective time."  Forget about it.  It's irrelevant to the physical questions involved. Only a ridiculous theory like SR would think otherwise. If you do that, what do you come up with?

Edited April 16, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

It's really quite simple.  Say A and B have relative motion between them at .6c.

 

Now, if you want to posit that A is "at rest,"  then you have simply designated A as having the preferred frame as between the two.  It is then A's frame where clocks and rods remain unaffected and where the speed of light is isotropic.  It will then be B's (moving) frame where clocks slow down, etc.

 

If you want to posit B as being "at rest," then it's the same thing in reverse.  B's frame is now the preferred one.

 

SR wants to simultaneously say that both are at rest, while both are also moving.  Both are "equally valid"  while each is also preferred. Clock retardation is allegedly "reciprocal."

 

This is both logically and physically impossible.  In an attempt to make the impossible somehow seem possible, SR brings in the notion of what you call "perspective" time (relative simultaneity).  It's completely bogus.  Ignore it. It generates never-ending contradictions and will therefore keep you confused until your dying day if you accept it, and try to justify it.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

I agree, perspective time as reality is almost totally irrelevant but I must provide a bridge for relativists to eventually cross over, then I blow it up behind them. But don't think I will ever go over to the camp of absolute time. Proper time ticks at the universal proper time clock rate for all individuals or between those engaged in constant relative velocity. If one participant changes the relative velocity, he will age slower at the doppler shift ratio rate for the duration of the imbalance. Neither participant will be aware of this slower rate within their own frames. 

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

If one participant changes the relative velocity, he will age slower at the doppler shift ratio rate for the duration of the imbalance. 

 

 

Of course, but what does that have to do with "time?" 

 

Neither participant will be aware of this slower rate within their own frames.

 

 

And what does being "aware of" something that is exclusively in your frame tell you about "the universe" to begin with?  But, no need to really even ask or answer that question.   If one speeds up or slows down he WILL know it, contrary to your claim.  Acceleration is absolute and can be "felt" by your senses and/or objectively measured by an accelerometer. And, for that matter, BOTH will know that their "relative velocity" has changed, again contrary to your claim. You're still accepting too much of SR's bullshit.

 

But the main point remains the same: It doesn't matter what they think or know.  The universe doesn't care.  It doesn't change in the least based on that kind of irrelevant crap.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Moronium

[ralfcis]

While working on my derivation of formulas for proper time and perspective time, I came across another huge contradiction in the theory of relativity. Basically relativity states time is subjective, there is no universal time and everyone's perspective of time, is correct and unique and only truly shared with those co-located within a frame and relativistically shared within a wider circle of those engaged in 0 relative velocity. If Alice and Bob are relatively moving, they don't share the same present or simultaneity and their clocks don't have the same time and are ticking at reciprocally different rates. If Alice makes a velocity change, she breaks the symmetry of reciprocal time dilation and ends up with a permanent age difference from Bob. Since Alice's reality is delayed by the speed of light, Bob's perspective of their relative velocity is also delayed. Bob will see Alice's Doppler shift ratio (DSR) remain unchanged for a period of time. From that he can calculate their relative velocity and her reciprocal time dilation which isn't real from an instantaneous view of time but is totally real (according to relativity) to Bob from his subjective perspective of time. 

 

So here's an example of Alice going out at .6c but returning at .8c at the 3 ly mark. Bob's perspective reality won't know Alice has changed direction and velocity so for 3 yrs her relative velocity is .6c, not .8c. Gamma will be 1.25, not 5/3. Y is used to calculate units on Alice's velocity line from Bob's perspective. But the units on Alice's return velocity line do not reflect Bob's perspective reality at all. They are not calculated using Bob's perspective time Y=1.25 but the instantaneous time Y = 5/3. How is this possible when relativity denies instantaneous time exists and that Bob's perspective is that his relative velocity is .6c, not .8c. It looks like relativity was lying all along that perspective time is reality otherwise it would be impossible to calculate the unit spacing on Alice's return line. That calculation requires Bob's perspective of their relative velocity.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/XLowBypQ1zeRsZhGA

 

If you follow Bob's blue lines of simultaneity when he is t= 6.25, his perspective present, according to v=.6c which is the only relative velocity he can see, should join to t'= 5 but it actually joins to t' =4.75 (@ v=.8c). Alice's t'=5 is on Bob's line of simultaneity of t=6.67. The idea that the real present is subjective is not true and that assumption has lead to the logical quagmire of contradictions the theory of relativity is. 

 

PS. Not that anyone on this forum is capable of knowing how this contradiction is handled by relativity so I'll save some time and tell you. Velocity time units are calculated using hyperbolic proper time lines. Calculating them using gamma gives the same numerical answers but that doesn't mean the same idea is behind them. In fact the proper time lines are instantaneous universal  time lines that relativity disavows while the gamma method is for the perspective time domain. Proper time has always been a corner stone of relativity but because Uncle Albert told you all it doesn't exist, you must all nod your heads in agreement and follow only what Al says, not the math.

Edited December 21, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Wow, not a single yea or nay or even a question of clarification about what I just wrote. So I can assume many things but the most likely is that no one on this forum has enough basic knowledge of relativity to be able to formulate a question or Uncle Barry* has such a hold over everyone's minds that my entire post self-redacts on contact. Ok, I guess that's the price I have to pay to have the freedom to write such blasphemy on a "physics" forum. I get a lot of views of my threads, I'm curious what people are getting out of them.

 

*Barry Einstein from Cleveland who faked a German accent so he could get a job at Princeton teaching some crazy story he made up about relativity. Hopefully that will incite someone to speak up.

Edited April 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[fahrquad]

The rest of us are just humoring y'all until the guys with the straight jackets arrive.

[Amplituhedron]

Wow, not a single yea or nay or even a question of clarification about what I just wrote. So I can assume many things but the most likely is that no one on this forum has enough basic knowledge of relativity to be able to formulate a question or Uncle Barry* has such a hold over everyone's minds that my entire post self-redacts on contact. 

 

You know what they say about what you do when you "assume."

 

As to why your threads have so many views, think: "rubbernecking at a thirty-car pileup."

[ralfcis]

This reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where, hey, on this planet of morons, I'm the moron. Two people commented on my posts who know nothing of math or relativity or about thinking for themselves. Yup, two geniuses who can't even muster a counter-argument between them and they're the brilliant ones here. They appear every now and then to throw peanuts then disappear into the woodwork secure in their ignorance because their ignorance allows them to blend right in with everyone else. Yup, I recognize a lot of people on the same level of intelligence like to rubberneck. Prove my assumption wrong Amp and come up with some specific insight for once. You'll find your idiotic point about assumption is not true all the time.

Edited April 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Ralf, I, and others, for years, have explained in detail where you go wrong. No one wants to waste time on you anymore. I just like to check in on your stuff from time to time and shake my head  in baffled, bemused wonderment. I'm sure the same is true for others who read your stuff.

[ralfcis]

The old "everybody says so" argument just like Ahole used and look how far it got him. In fact no one has ever explained in detail anything except for KJW on the science forum. I can recognize intelligent people and you certainly ain't even close. You haven't said a single thing mathematical or scientific since you got here unless you're a sock puppet for someone else. I've shot many people down on other forums, I wouldn't be surprised if you're someone with a grudge for past humiliations.  My math is all laid out. It's high school algebra FFS. All you need is high school algebra to prove me wrong or show where I misrepresented relativity. You're a poser, you know nothing and haven't proved anything otherwise. This is a discussion forum, not a place for ignorant trolls to take potshots at their betters.

Edited April 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

:lol: