Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Amplituhedron]

. I'm not discussing any more recitations on what relativty is saying because quite obviously no one knows what relativity is saying. 

 

Of course no one does, ralf! 

[exchemist]

#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.

No. It is obvious only that you affect to believe no one understands what relativity is saying. Yet I am in doubt at all what it says about the muon case.

 

It seems to me that you have some kind of emotional barrier to accepting that length can be different when measured from different frames of reference. You need to believe it is a mathematical fiction of some sort. But it isn't. It's real. This length contraction is how moving electric charges create a magnetic field. And magnetism is real enough.   

[ralfcis]

So you just look at my evidence and just dismiss it without understanding a thing and going back to your crutch. I haven't looked into your last statement and I'm not interested in debating something you can't explain mathematically. Don't give me a wiki article please, they are just the tools dumb people use when all they can scan is words they recognize but can't put the article in their own words. Do you see a problem with 3 or 6? If not then shut up.

 

``emotional barrier to accepting that length can be different when measured from different frames of reference``

 

another baseless stupid opinion. It can`t be measured in real time. It can`t be sent out in a light message like time dilation can. Time dilation is also not observable in real time. As I asked before, show me one real example of length contraction being a necessity.  Don`t need it in the muon example so it`s also, by corollary not needed in the parallel light clock example. Show me your proof it`s needed for electromagnetism. I`ll bet it`s more halfassed junk proof.

Edited April 27, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

And, as I have pointed out, there is no permanent time dilation, either. When Bob and Alice meet up again in the same frame, their clocks are ticking in sync again, and of course they are the same length again.

 

What there is, rather, is a record of the person who switched frames — traveling Alice — wrt earthbound Bob. That record is the loss of time on Alice’s clock vis a vis Bob’s clock — the fact that Alice is actually younger. This is a record of time dilation and length contraction together.

 

Also, SR can be formulated without reference to accelerated frames at all. But of course that there are accelerated frames in the twin thought experiment is irrelevant. GR encompasses accelerated frames while keeping SR intact.

 

It is a funny thing how relativity denialists deny SR, when SR has been OBSERVED — the classic muon experiment, for example, which validates both time dilation and length contraction.

 

If you think these things are wrong, then scroll up to the link I gave to the light clock, one running perpendicular to the direction of motion and the other parallel to it, and show where the demonstration goes wrong. It doesn’t. Also, explain muons.

What you just said does not explain away the problem I outlined.

How can the guy expand back to normal size (as time regains its normal pace) without leaving the essential  inertial frame of reference? Einsteins claim is that SR only is valid in an inertial frame, period.  Yet to regain normal dimensions, the guy must be accelerating in a negative fashion, and it must be still true that at any one instant, he will be less length contracted than he was a second before.... but this affect of length contraction is actually and obviously working in a NON inertial frame!   This proves that SR has a big hole of logic that destroys the hypothesis.

The same applies to the process of acceleration up to the measured stable velocity, where we apply the Lorentz equations. The hypothesis says that there will be x amount of length contraction at that stable velocity.  But you want me to believe that he remained at his normal length from stationary acceleration all the way up to the target stable target velocity, but the instant the acceleration stopped, and we had the fabled "inertial frame situation, THEN the guy instantly popped into a shrunken state?

 

Please explain.

 

Also, Its a curious thing that Relativists immediately attribute any observed evidence as being caused by their pet hypothesis, which is itself like silly putty, it can be made to fit almost any scenario.

 

So, no, We have NOT all  agreed that the Muon experiment tells us anything of the sort according to you interpretation of that observation.

The explanation that pretend effects, (time dilation) supplies the ONLY and true explanation for the perceived and interpreted events in the Muon experiment, is a leap of blind faith by Relativists who are clutching at straws for anything that they can twist into their world view.  This is the approach of Mormons to any evidence. They look at it through their rose colored glasses, and see what they want to see.

 

I don't need to supply any explanation for the Muon experiment. My lack of a rational explanation does not grant that a wacky explanation is therefore valid.

We have an observation, say "apples fall down".  I, like Newton say, "I don't know whats going on here". 

 

Einstein proffers a weird explanation that actually does nothing to explain the Physics of Gravity, yet his hypothesis is accepted?  Does ANY explanation trump the simple fact that we just dont know?

 

I don't think so.  What if Einstein's explanation was, "Fairies did it!",  Would that be accepted as the one true and correct explanation?

So you have no experimental evidence at all to support SR or GR, all the so called evidential proofs can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

 

Remember that we cant prove that something is true, we can only prove that something is NOT true.

And the abundance of criticisms of Einsteins theories, from a variety of angles, (Math, Logic, Rationality,) from a great number of people, from 1905 till now, is enough to relegate SR and GR to the "most likely wrong" bin.  Actually the proofs as to where Einstein sis wrong are redoubtable.

Only by faith can one accept SR and GR.

[marcospolo]

 

 

Ok, so in your two light clocks at right angles thought experiment,... time is imagined to be ticking on both clocks at the same rate, but only for an observer in the same frame? (spaceship).  But for someone not in the space ship, and not moving, he knows that the two clocks are ticking at different rates?

He knows this because the light in the horizontal clock has to catch up to the other end of the clock, which is moving away from the light pulse?

So this means that light is moving at C, relative to what exactly? Clearly not relative to the source on that clock,.... so its moving relative to absolute background which has no motion.  This can be the only explanation.

This also works for the guy in your example who is watching the ship fly past at 95% c.    He  measure light going past him at c, because he assumes he is also not moving. (he is fixed to the background) 

 

BUT, if you mount a speed detector to that top mirror on your horizontal clock, the one that the light is trying to "catch up to", then that detector MUST read some lesser value for light speed than anyone else.  (C- 95% of C.)

 

If you say the distance to the mirror has shrunk, so that the light still arrives at that mirror at the same moment that the vertical clock records, then because of the formula for velocity is V=dt.   now you changed the velocity of the light with respect to the horizontal clock, and you also reduced the distance, so to balance out the result, you MUST INCREASE TIME, not decrease it!     If you mess with the equation, chance a variable, the second variable must change in the opposite direction. So you simply can not shrink both Time AND Distance, and still keep the result the same.If you halve the distance, then you have to double the time.

 

Also, on you web site, you say that the moving person with think that he is stationary, and that the other guy has shrunk, but the opposite will be experienced by the other observer.

This expressed as A>B    and B>A   therefore it is s logical impossibility that bot these statement can be correct.

Plug any numbers into those equations and you must get a contradiction.

Einstein is just wrong, face it.

Edited April 27, 2019 by marcospolo

[Amplituhedron]

 

 

Also, on you web site, you say that the moving person with think that he is stationary, and that the other guy has shrunk, but the opposite will be experienced by the other observer.

This expressed as A>B    and B>A   therefore it is s logical impossibility that bot these statement can be correct.

Plug any numbers into those equations and you must get a contradiction.

Einstein is just wrong, face it.

 

Srsly? This is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum? And the illiteracy and stupidity above passes muster as valid contributions here?

 

Science for everyone? Mods, admins, this is your idea of "science for everyone"?

 

Apart from all your misspellings and typos, do you really not have any clue at all to the resolution of the so-called contradiction of reciprocal time dilation and length contraction? I mean, really? You are really this clueless?  :shocked:

 

I can't even ... wow! I don't think even ralf is this clueless!

[ralfcis]

`` This length contraction is how moving electric charges create a magnetic field. And magnetism is real enough.   ``

 

Why don`t you do a search on the physics stack exchange on how does time dilation create a magnetic field. If you can`t even understand my simple algebra, how are you going to understand the formulae describing how length contraction or time dilation contribute relativistically to  a magnetic field. What my algebra shows is that what defines length contraction from time dilation is where you put Y in an equation. I`ve been to dumb forums but this one takes the cake for people mixing ignorance with malevolence.

Edited April 28, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

Srsly? This is supposed to be a SCIENCE forum? And the illiteracy and stupidity above passes muster as valid contributions here?

 

Science for everyone? Mods, admins, this is your idea of "science for everyone"?

 

Apart from all your misspellings and typos, do you really not have any clue at all to the resolution of the so-called contradiction of reciprocal time dilation and length contraction? I mean, really? You are really this clueless?  :shocked:

 

I can't even ... wow! I don't think even ralf is this clueless!

Ok, I rushed the posts through without bothering to worry about typo's.  Crucify me. Ive little time to spend on spell checking,  Physics this is just an interest on the side for me.

However, you care to elaborate on what makes my comments stupid?

You gong to say stuff like that you need to come up with some reasons.

Attack the statements, not the person please.

 

How exactly do you overcome the problems I pointed out? Enlighten us with your great knowledge.

[marcospolo]

`` This length contraction is how moving electric charges create a magnetic field. And magnetism is real enough.   ``

 

Why don`t you do a search on the physics stack exchange on how does time dilation create a magnetic field. If you can`t even understand my simple algebra, how are you going to understand the formulae describing how length contraction or time dilation contribute relativistically to  a magnetic field. What my algebra shows is that what defines length contraction from time dilation is where you put Y in an equation. I`ve been to dumb forums but this one takes the cake for people mixing ignorance with malevolence.

The claim that length contraction is the mechanism that allows the motion of electrons to create magnetism, is itself just someones hypothesis.

Why do you assume that its correct.?

You formulas may look cool, but there is no guarantee that they resemble anything in the real world.

 

I prefer to think about rational explanations as to how something could possibly work, and length contraction would be not even on my list of possibilities, due to the fact that's its not sensible, and would create a lot of weird conclusions about other parts of Physics, which is exactly what we have.

[exchemist]

So you just look at my evidence and just dismiss it without understanding a thing and going back to your crutch. I haven't looked into your last statement and I'm not interested in debating something you can't explain mathematically. Don't give me a wiki article please, they are just the tools dumb people use when all they can scan is words they recognize but can't put the article in their own words. Do you see a problem with 3 or 6? If not then shut up.

 

``emotional barrier to accepting that length can be different when measured from different frames of reference``

 

another baseless stupid opinion. It can`t be measured in real time. It can`t be sent out in a light message like time dilation can. Time dilation is also not observable in real time. As I asked before, show me one real example of length contraction being a necessity.  Don`t need it in the muon example so it`s also, by corollary not needed in the parallel light clock example. Show me your proof it`s needed for electromagnetism. I`ll bet it`s more halfassed junk proof.

Suit yourself. 

[Amplituhedron]

Ok, I rushed the posts through without bothering to worry about typo's.  Crucify me. Ive little time to spend on spell checking,  Physics this is just an interest on the side for me.

However, you care to elaborate on what makes my comments stupid?

You gong to say stuff like that you need to come up with some reasons.

Attack the statements, not the person please.

 

How exactly do you overcome the problems I pointed out? Enlighten us with your great knowledge.

 

You do not even seem to know about the relativistic solution this apparent paradox. You don’t even have to agree with the solution — though it is correct — but it is as if you have never even heard of it! How can you presume to critique a theory you do not even understand? 

 

This is not even new. It goes back to Galileo, and is called Galilean relativity: the idea that in a frame in constant uniform motion (inertial) there is no experiment that you can perform to prove your motion. You are fully entitled to think of yourself as at rest, with the outside world moving past.

 

The wrinkle that Einstein introduced to update Galileo was the invariance of light speed. Once this is factored in, it has to be the case that time dilation and length contraction occur, but still remain the case that no one can perform a test to prove absolute motion or absolute rest. From this it follows that two frames in relative motion wrt each other will observe the other frame time dilated and length contracted. This is the basis of the twin paradox.

 

The resolution, of course, is that the symmetry is temporary. One or both of the twins will have to switch frames if they are to meet up again. When that happens, it will show their clocks out of sync, though they will resume being in sync when they are in the same frame again. But one clock will have a record of a lag.

 

Now what if they don’t meet again? What if they continue on in constant uniform motion forever? Then one will say the other is time dilated and length contracted, and vice versa. Both will be correct.

 

Is this a contradiction? It is not. To suggest that it is a contradiction is to beg the question in favor of Newton’s absolute space and time, which Einstein showed to be false. There is no objective frame-independent fact of the matter about who is older or younger — such facts must be relativized to reference frames. Were this not so, then even Galileo would be wrong. So your real target is Galileo and not Einstein.

[sluggo]

Ralf;

 

 

Relativistic results can be explained without bringing in length contraction.

 

[Not true. The MMX requires length contraction to explain the results.

If nothing changed in the setup, the x axis would require more light time for a round trip than the p (perpendicular) axis, i.e., they would not return simultaneously, as shown in the mmx2.jpg. The x and p dimensions are overlaid for comparison on the left. On the right, length contraction allows the x signal to arrive simultaneously with the p signal, in agreement with the experimental results.

 

Length contraction is another manifestation of time dilation, which extends the time between em interactions of electrons, i.e. weaker repulsion which allows compression during acceleration. Upon deceleration the frequency of interactions increases, with greater repulsion extending length. A clock runs slower with speed, so there is no speed to regain the lost time. Since the conversion factor gamma is the same for both td and lc, the moving observer is not aware of any changes. All objects (including both clocks) are moving so both lose time, but only the difference can be measured, when compared at a common location.

 

 

[sluggo]

ralf #633;

 

The correct coordinate transformations are:

 

x'=g(x-vt)

 

t'=g(t-vx/cc)

 

g=gamma

 

Unprimed symbols denote the rest frame B, primed symbols denote frame in motion A

Given B observes A at x=.75, at t=1.25, and gamma=1/.8 for v=.6c, c=1

The A coordinates are:

x'=1.25(.75-.6(1.25))=1.25(0)=0

 

t'=1.25(1.25-.6(.75))=1.25(. 8)=1.0

 

The relative speed v, is determined by measurements.

You don't mix primed and unprimed symbols.

 

Using the transformations:

 

x'/t'=(x-vt)/ (t-vx/cc)=x(1-v/c)/t(1-v/c)=x/t

 

Any expressions using x and t are equivalent from one frame to another, supporting the 1st postulate. If x/t=c, then so does x'/t'.

 

Your 'math trick' has no purpose,

 

 

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

 

 

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

Bob is the rest frame and does not consider space contracted.

 

 

Alice in the moving frame does consider space contracted, resulting from altered perception of time. It's the only way she can reconcile her destination arriving early.

 

The SR 1905 paper defines the only meaningful time as 'local' time for an observer.

 

As to aging:

While there is relative motion, each can only conclude the other clock is running slower than their clock. A distant A-clock reading received by observer B is an historical fact and doesn't allow a clock comparison unless the distance is known, which requires a round trip signal from B.

 

How many years will you spend on the 'twin' scenario? Life is short, and 100 years from now, all this stuff won't make any difference. I can't believe you enjoy all the criticism you get!

[marcospolo]

You do not even seem to know about the relativistic solution this apparent paradox. You don’t even have to agree with the solution — though it is correct — but it is as if you have never even heard of it! How can you presume to critique a theory you do not even understand? 

 

This is not even new. It goes back to Galileo, and is called Galilean relativity: the idea that in a frame in constant uniform motion (inertial) there is no experiment that you can perform to prove your motion. You are fully entitled to think of yourself as at rest, with the outside world moving past.

 

The wrinkle that Einstein introduced to update Galileo was the invariance of light speed. Once this is factored in, it has to be the case that time dilation and length contraction occur, but still remain the case that no one can perform a test to prove absolute motion or absolute rest. From this it follows that two frames in relative motion wrt each other will observe the other frame time dilated and length contracted. This is the basis of the twin paradox.

 

The resolution, of course, is that the symmetry is temporary. One or both of the twins will have to switch frames if they are to meet up again. When that happens, it will show their clocks out of sync, though they will resume being in sync when they are in the same frame again. But one clock will have a record of a lag.

 

Now what if they don’t meet again? What if they continue on in constant uniform motion forever? Then one will say the other is time dilated and length contracted, and vice versa. Both will be correct.

 

Is this a contradiction? It is not. To suggest that it is a contradiction is to beg the question in favor of Newton’s absolute space and time, which Einstein showed to be false. There is no objective frame-independent fact of the matter about who is older or younger — such facts must be relativized to reference frames. Were this not so, then even Galileo would be wrong. So your real target is Galileo and not Einstein.

Einstein's claim that Light speed is invariant, measurable to be c in any frame, is clearly Einstein's weakest postulate, and is a logical fallacy. Therefore it follows that SR will be a false hypothesis, which then removes all the grounds for argument and debate.

 

And you never explained what would happen to that guy in the ship regarding length contraction, under the scenario I proposed in my first comment #652.

You never addressed it because there is no rational solution.

And your comment, "Then one will say the other is time dilated and length contracted, and vice versa. Both will be correct.". expressed mathematically is:

A>B AND B>A.  AND both are TRUE.

 

This my friend is not Mathematically, Physically, or Logically possible.

[Amplituhedron]

Light speed IS invariant in all frames, in vacuo. This was a postulate of Einstein's, and every observation since his time verifies this.

 

I didn’t bother addressing #652 because it is incoherent gobbledygook, and I didn’t want to waste my time on it. Time is valuable, whether dilated or not!

 

 

A>B AND B>A.  AND both are TRUE.

 

This my friend is not Mathematically, Physically, or Logically possible.

 

 

Meet Einstein:

 

 

"The question of whether the Lorentz contraction really exists or not is misleading.

...[it is] not real in so far as it does not exist for a co-moving observer.

...[it is] real in so far as it can be demonstrated in principle by physical means by an observer that is not co-moving”

Edited April 28, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

I see absolutely nothing new in what you've presented. Why would I accept it this time. I've already refuted this argument and it's up to you to refute my refutation.  Just superficially you've already discredited yourself with an explanation of how an iron bar shrinks and expands due to relativistic effects on electrons. Every single non-amateur relativist will state length contraction is not a physical phenomenon but a mathematical outcome of relativity of simultaneity. Please look this up on the physics stack exchange under relativity 101.  You've also totally discredited yourself with your explanation of permanent age difference which is absolutely not due to time dilation losses on both legs of a roundtrip journey. You are a rank amateur and if there were any knowledgeable people on this forum they would take the time to put you in your place. I am not interested in wasting my time trying to teach you and, like the other two bozos, discount my math on the basis everybody says it must be wrong. You don't mix primed and unprimed symbols? Laughable. Did you make that up yourself. Have you never heard the story of Alice travelling across the universe in very little of her time? As I said before, on a planet of morons, the ones who know something wear the dunce caps. I'm not going to repeatedly rise to the same bait. If I wasn't around would you all be retelling stories of your personal experiences with length contraction and how great and true it is? You just can't understand any relativistic problem you tackle can be solved with either length contraction, time dilation or Yv as I showed in my muon example. It's because all can be interchangeably stated with the other two but it's like you don't understand what an equation is.  I'm not phased by the criticism I get, I'm sickened by the criticism I have to give out; the state of general intelligence saddens me deeply. So please get lost, I have real work to do.

 

PS. Here's the horizontal light clock example:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o3-YqDDGjA&list=PLj6DWzIvBi4PFDXCCV1bNhVUgDLTwVbFc&index=23

 

If you can't solve this without length contraction then you have pre-pubescent math skills and I'm not interested in talking to you.

Edited April 29, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

Thanks for the lulz!  :lol: