Relativity And Simple Algebra

[ralfcis]

"This is a record of time dilation and length contraction together."

 

So you must have an example where you work out the math of each contribution to the total. I'd love to see that because so far as I know, the Rindler metric is what calculates age difference in relativity and I haven't seen a distance component to that. Time dilation and relativity of simultaneity have distance components converted into time equivalents but neither are relevant to age difference. 

 

Maybe this example will help you get your math bearings. Alice at .6c at t'=1, Bob's t=1.25. The time dilation component is Yt' = .8 and the distance component is vx/c² = 3/5 * 3/4 = .45. .8 + .45 = 1.25. Bob's time is the total of time dilation component and relativity of simultaneity distance component. Show me how age difference is made of time and distance components. If you can't, you're just presenting an opinion as fact.

 

" the classic muon experiment, for example, which validates both time dilation and length contraction."

 

So you haven't seen my post totally discrediting that statement. At least you acknowledge that there is a connection between the parallel clock and the muon experiment in that they are the go-to examples of why length contraction is real. Is the problem you just believe without being able to do any math?

 

Did you consider my example of the Doppler shift ratio TV and Raskar photos or do you just ignore that because Einstein didn't say anything about TV or ultra-high speed photography. You seem to be ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit your narrative and we're right back at the beginning again. I thought we were making some progress outside the box but you don't want to leave the box at all.

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Here's simple math trick proving length contraction doesn't exist.

 

From relativity x' = Yx and t=Yt'. x' is length contraction and t' is time dilation.

 

v = x/t. Multiply both sides by Y.

 

so Yv = Yx/t. plug in x'=Yx

 

Yv = Yx'/Yt = x'/t . This expresses Bob's view of Alice traversing contracted space in his time.

 

now plug in t=Yt' into v=x/t

 

Yv= Yx/ Yt' = x/t' This expresses Alice traversing an uncontracted space in her time.

 

Because both equal Yv so you can express relativistic effects in terms of length contraction or time dilation, it's your choice. So why choose length contraction when everything can be expressed in time dilation only. This is what my post on the muon experiment confirms. It can be explained without ever using length contraction just like the ladder paradox can be explained without ever using length contraction. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Yes, Ralf, and here are some very basic maths for you -- as opposed to your numerology. 

[ralfcis]

Quit throwing smoke bombs. Obviously that is the level of mathematical understanding you have of relativity so everything you've been saying is recitation of others misunderstood opinions. Did you understand my simple math or not. I'm tired of liars on here trying to pose they know more than they do when they know nothing and don't want to admit it. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Smoke bombs? Then refute the smoke bombs! You can't!

 

Your little go-to evasion, which you always fall back on to salve your wounded ego, is that you are a master of maths and everyone else knows  none of it. Yet plenty of people, including me, understand the maths. You, otoh, can't refute simple math -- no, actually, mere arithmetic -- that shows why length contraction MUST occur.
 

It is to laugh!  :lol:

[ralfcis]

I've noticed Moronium has taken a hiatus, are you jockeying for his position? You're just like any crank, post an article with numbers of more than 10 decimal places and there's your proof. If it wasn't true, how could it be producing numbers of 10 digit accuracy. Talk about numerology. Hey arithmetic wizard, grade 10 called, they want you back, seems you didn't pass algebra so they're revoking your only diploma.  

[exchemist]

I've noticed Moronium has taken a hiatus, are you jockeying for his position? You're just like any crank, post an article with numbers of more than 10 decimal places and there's your proof. If it wasn't true, how could it be producing numbers of 10 digit accuracy. Talk about numerology. Hey arithmetic wizard, grade 10 called, they want you back, seems you didn't pass algebra so they're revoking your only diploma.  

Don't be ridiculous Ralf. The explanation of SR that everyone, from Nobel Prizewinners downwards, uses is the one in which length contraction is the corollary of time dilation. You can't dismiss the views of the whole of science by means of ad hominem attacks on one person. 

 

If you think the whole of science is wrong about this, how do you think this situation has come about and what is your unique insight that has eluded everyone else?

Edited April 27, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

So you can't follow my algebra either. I just said any relativistic effect can just as easily be explained by time dilation as it can by length contraction. Is that not the definition of corollary? So I choose every proof to only use time dilation so why would I use length contraction as well. Most people assume the choice is due to which perspective is chosen. That's not true. I dismiss the views of the whole of science by using step by step reasoning and math but all you people here can do is not follow and declare the conclusion must be wrong because it goes against all of science, it is written. Amp produced absolutely no proof length contraction exists as a real phenomenon  with his little posting. All he showed was the mathematical formula for length contraction produces numbers. Both time dilation and length contraction exist only as mathematical calculations and can never be observed in real time. The problem is none of you understand the difference between time dilation and age difference and doppler shift ratio, they're all the same thing in the grey muddle between your ears.

 

PS> "If you think the whole of science is wrong about this, how do you think this situation has come about and what is your unique insight that has eluded everyone else?"

 

This question is stupid. I can theorize all day about the reasons but that's not important. I've said relativistic math agrees with the physics up to a point. But because you can't read, you don't know what that point is do you? This is why my insight has eluded everyone else, they don't want to look stupid and stand out from the crowd. Same reason people follow religion, the crazier the theocracy, the more faith it requires, questioning can't be tolerated. But if your certainty is so strong, why has not one person disproved a single point I've made. The answer is they can't be bothered because they're so sure I'm wrong. They think the "everybody says so" argument and endless repetition from scripture is a disproof of what I'm saying. And so the circular reasoning continues.

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

There is no circular reasoning. Your claims are disproved. The reason your “insight” has “eluded” everyone is because you have no insight!

 

You yak on about math but you can’t even address the simple experiment of turning a light clock on its side and letting it run parallel with a moving conveyance with respect to an at-rest observer. The simple arithmetic shows you MUST have length contraction to keep c constant in all frames!

 

Instead of addressing this simple proof that invalidates all your bogus math, you choose repeatedly to insult people instead.

[ralfcis]

I already addressed it. Yc is the answer. The light will travel the invariant distance in dilated time not a length contracted distance.  This does not violate c being the max velocity. As I proved, length contraction is the other  side of the coin of time dilation. So stop lying. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean I didn't address it. Now I've had enough of arguing with morons. I don't care to help you any more. In fact it would be a detriment to me if I was able to convince you because I'd then have a following of double digit dum dums.  Hold on, I'll put you guys on my ignore list. Weird, I just took exchemist off it today and now he's back on.

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

So you can't follow my algebra either. I just said any relativistic effect can just as easily be explained by time dilation as it can by length contraction. Is that not the definition of corollary? So I choose every proof to only use time dilation so why would I use length contraction as well. Most people assume the choice is due to which perspective is chosen. That's not true. I dismiss the views of the whole of science by using step by step reasoning and math but all you people here can do is not follow and declare the conclusion must be wrong because it goes against all of science, it is written. Amp produced absolutely no proof length contraction exists as a real phenomenon  with his little posting. All he showed was the mathematical formula for length contraction produces numbers. Both time dilation and length contraction exist only as mathematical calculations and can never be observed in real time. The problem is none of you understand the difference between time dilation and age difference and doppler shift ratio, they're all the same thing in the grey muddle between your ears.

 

PS> "If you think the whole of science is wrong about this, how do you think this situation has come about and what is your unique insight that has eluded everyone else?"

 

This question is stupid. I can theorize all day about the reasons but that's not important. I've said relativistic math agrees with the physics up to a point. But because you can't read, you don't know what that point is do you? This is why my insight has eluded everyone else, they don't want to look stupid and stand out from the crowd. Same reason people follow religion, the crazier the theocracy, the more faith it requires, questioning can't be tolerated. But if your certainty is so strong, why has not one person disproved a single point I've made. The answer is they can't be bothered because they're so sure I'm wrong. They think the "everybody says so" argument and endless repetition from scripture is a disproof of what I'm saying. And so the circular reasoning continues.

So everyone in physics is an idiot? Except you? Is that likely?  

 

As I have understood it, length contraction measured in one frame of reference is the corollary of time dilation measured in the other, the classic example being the muon case:  as measured from the Earth's surface the muons' time is running slower (longer lifetime), whereas from the muons' frame of reference it is the height of the atmosphere that is contracted. You need both because from the muons' frame of reference time runs at "normal" speed.  

Edited April 27, 2019 by exchemist

[Amplituhedron]

As I proved, length contraction is the other  side of the coin of time dilation. 

 

Oh, length contraction is the other side of the coin of time dilation? :shocked:  But then that means that length contraction is real -- otherwise, time dilation could not be real!

 

But, whatever! Maybe you think it is possible to have a coin with only one side -- though as I recall, Borges write a cool short story about a disc with only one side.

 

And, yes, obviously, we're all morons except for you! So why are you here? Why don't you take your baa--rillant insights to the Nobel Prize physics committee, or to MIT, or to ... oh, I don't know? Don Lincoln, maybe?

 

But Lincoln refused even to consider your stuff, remember?

 

Why's that? Cuz he's a moron, too?  :surprise:

[ralfcis]

Yes, yes, that is indeed what I thought relativity was being understood as. I looked for my muon example but couldn't find it so I will restate:

 

Muon's speed from earth perspective is v= .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s. Y = 9.14

Distance from earth perspective the muon needs to traverse from upper atmosphere is x= 5.9km from earth's perspective

Time from muon's perspective of how long it has to traverse that distance is t' =2.2 usec .

Time from earth's perspective of how long it would take to traverse 5.9 km at .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s t= 19.8 usec

Earth's perspective of muon's dilated time t=Yt' = 20 usec

 

1. So a muon's dilated time from earth's perspective is 20 usec to traverse 5.9 kms.  It's speed would require 19.8 usec to traverse that distance so it makes it despite living only 2.2 usec in its own proper time. 

 

2. Normally relativists would solve the problem from the muon's perspective using length contraction. The muon would see the distance it had to traverse in 2.2 usec contracted to 5.9/Y = .645 kms. At .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s the time required to traverse that distance is 2.16 usec. The muon lives 2.2 usec from its perspective so it lives long enough to traverse the distance it sees contracted. 

 

3. But now let's do that same calculation from the muon's perspective with the distance not contracted. x = 5.9km, t'= 2.2usec Yv = x/t' = 2.68 * 10⁶ km/s. The Yv we have is 9.14 * .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s = 2.72 *10⁶ km/s. So it has more velocity than needed using its time and the earth's distance to traverse.

 

Now you might say the muon is travelling v= 9c but it's not. v= earth's perspective of distance/ earth's perspective of time. The muon is travelling earth's perspective of distance/ the muon's perspective of time which is Yv= x/t' not v = x/t.

 

4. We can do more calculations. From the earth's perspective it is moving toward the muon at .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s. From the muon's perspective, x=5.9 km which the earth sees as length contracted to .645kms. From the earth's perspective, the muon lives 2.2usec and it has to reach it before it disappears. Luckily, the earth can traverse .645km in 2.16 usec.

 

5. Or we can do this calculation with the earth travelling at Yv with no length contraction. Yv for the earth is 2.72 * 10⁶ km/s but it only needs 2.68 * 10⁶ km/s to traverse 5.9 km in less than 2.2 usec

 

6. Or from the muon's perspective, the earth has 2.2 usec to reach it but the muon sees the earth's time dilated to 20 usec. The earth needs only 19.8 usec to reach the muon before it disappears.

 

So there's like 6 different ways to calculate the muon experiment and only two of them need to consider length contraction. The muon's perspective does not depend on the existence of length contraction as everyone believes. Just because everyone has seen the muon calculations handled in the following way doesn't mean it's the only way. 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnwELPmJIL8&index=21&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc

Unfortunately you guys are so dumb you won't understand any of the math I've produced or anything I've said to disprove your contention.

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[exchemist]

Yes, yes, that is indeed what I thought relativity was being understood as. I looked for my muon example but couldn't find it so I will restate:

 

Muon's speed from earth perspective is v= .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s. Y = 9.14

Distance from earth perspective the muon needs to traverse from upper atmosphere is x= 5.9km from earth's perspective

Time from muon's perspective of how long it has to traverse that distance is t' =2.2 usec .

Time from earth's perspective of how long it would take to traverse 5.9 km at .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s t= 19.8 usec

Earth's perspective of muon's dilated time t=Yt' = 20 usec

 

So a muon's dilated time from earth's perspective is 20 usec to traverse 5.9 kms.  It's speed would require 19.8 usec to traverse that distance so it makes it despite living only 2.2 usec in its own proper time. 

 

Normally relativists would solve the problem from the muon's perspective using length contraction. The muon would see the distance it had to traverse in 2.2 usec contracted to 5.9/Y = .645 kms. At .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s the time required to traverse that distance is 2.16 usec. The muon lives 2.2 usec from its perspective so it lives long enough to traverse the distance it sees contracted. 

 

But now let's do that same calculation from the muon's perspective with the distance not contracted. x = 5.9km, t'= 2.2usec Yv = x/t' = 2.68 * 10⁶ km/s. The Yv we have is 9.14 * .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s = 2.72 *10⁶ km/s. So it has more velocity than needed using its time and the earth's distance to traverse.

 

Now you might say the muon is travelling v= 9c but it's not. v= earth's perspective of distance/ earth's perspective of time. The muon is travelling earth's perspective of distance/ the muon's perspective of time which is Yv= x/t' not v = x/t.

 

We can do more calculations. From the earth's perspective it is moving toward the muon at .994c * 3 *10⁵ km/s. From the muon's perspective, x=5.9 km which the earth sees as length contracted to .645kms. From the earth's perspective, the muon lives 2.2usec and it has to reach it before it disappears. Luckily, the earth can traverse .645km in 2.16 usec.

 

Or we can do this calculation with the earth travelling at Yv with no length contraction. Yv for the earth is 2.72 * 10⁶ km/s but it only needs 2.68 * 10⁶ km/s to traverse 5.9 km in less than 2.2 usec

 

Or from the muon's perspective, the earth has 2.2 usec to reach it but the muon sees the earth's time dilated to 20 usec. The earth needs only 19.8 usec to reach the muon before it disappears.

 

So there's like 6 different ways to calculate the muon experiment and only two of them need to consider length contraction. The muon's perspective does not depend on the existence of length contraction as everyone believes. Just because everyone has seen the muon calculations handled in the following way doesn't mean it's the only way. 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnwELPmJIL8&index=21&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc

 

Unfortunately you guys are so dumb you won't understand any of the math I've produced or anything I've said to disprove your contention.

Well yes indeed, maybe we are all violently agreeing with one another after all, then. That would be cool.

 

But the thing about it is that if you consider the situation from the viewpoints of BOTH frames of reference, you need time dilation in one of them AND a corresponding length contraction in the other. That is all any of us are saying about it. I think.....

[ralfcis]

Why? Reciprocal time dilation is not reciprocal with length contraction. Maybe it's because the two are corollaries of each other as I showed in the algebra that no one can understand. The only mix of length contraction and time dilation that is not allowed is both concurrently from the same perspective. That is the muon's time can't be dilated while it is crossing a contracted space. Relativity depends on this contradiction to explain the constancy of the speed of light. I do not because I never use the unreal mathematical construct of length contraction. I explained what I use and it's like duh, duh, duh, length contraction doy. Yeah Wiki has proofs certain phenomena can't happen without length contraction being real but they're all wrong because it's physically impossible to experience length contraction in real time. You will never be able to construct a physical experiment where you can witness something whizzing by you and length contracting because the closer something is to you the less detectable the effect if it even existed which it does not. Are all the physicists since Lorentz wrong, yes, they are all wrong.

 

Nope the reason you and everyone else on this planet is saying one of the perspectives must be length contraction is because of the literal interpretation of Greene's video. He considers the muon's perspective is tied to length contraction and I showed it isn't. I will never agree with any of the literal thinkers here. Even if we might be saying the same thing, we are saying it for opposite reasons always and forever. Now since none of you are capable of learning anything, I've got about a year of math work to complete so don't waste my time anymore.

[exchemist]

Why? Reciprocal time dilation is not reciprocal with length contraction. Maybe it's because the two are corollaries of each other as I showed in the algebra that no one can understand. The only mix of length contraction and time dilation that is not allowed is both concurrently from the same perspective. That is the muon's time can't be dilated while it is crossing a contracted space. Relativity depends on this contradiction to explain the constancy of the speed of light. I do not because I never use the unreal mathematical construct of length contraction. I explained what I use and it's like duh, duh, duh, length contraction doy. Yeah Wiki has proofs certain phenomena can't happen without length contraction being real but they're all wrong because it's physically impossible to experience length contraction in real time. You will never be able to construct a physical experiment where you can witness something whizzing by you and length contracting because the closer something is to you the less detectable the effect if it even existed which it does not. Are all the physicists since Lorentz wrong, yes, they are all wrong.

 

Nope the reason you and everyone else on this planet is saying one of the perspectives must be length contraction is because of the literal interpretation of Greene's video. He considers the muon's perspective is tied to length contraction and I showed it isn't. I will never agree with any of the literal thinkers here. Even if we might be saying the same thing, we are saying it for opposite reasons always and forever. Now since none of you are capable of learning anything, I've got about a year of math work to complete so don't waste my time anymore.

No, I haven't been watching any videos. I just read Hoffmann's little book on SR.

 

Taking the muon case, can you explain to me how you think the situation appears from the muons' frame of reference, if there is no length contraction involved?

 

Or are you saying no, you've had enough of this discussion? 

Edited April 27, 2019 by exchemist

[ralfcis]

#3 and #6. I'll answer questions about what I'm saying. I'm not discussing any more recitations on what relativty is saying because quite obviously no one knows what relativity is saying. I left a link for Geene's video in my post.

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis