Relativity And Simple Algebra

[marcospolo]

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!

 

 

 

 

Meet Einstein:

And I did not bother to read Einsteins material, because  its babbling nonsense.

 

And for the record, no test has proved that light speed is invariant.

 

Relativists have INTERPRETED the observation to mean, (in their minds) that it supports their theory.

 

Bu the observation can and do have other interpretations, so you don't get to automatically claim that your version is the one we should accept.

The correct place to start, BEFORE you look at supporting observational evidence, is to have a rational, sound, solid hypothesis.

 

You don't have that!

 

You cant explain rationally how Einstein's  hypothesis is supposed to make sense, so its either too hard for you to figure out, or its just nonsense.

 

You cant bother to try understand my rather simple questions, or you cant understand them because you are particularly stupid, take your pick.

 

Dismissing someones simple questions about this supposedly well understood (by you) theory, is not how to win over new believers to your religion.

 

So as long s you go on making these wild unsubstantiated claims about this impossible theory of Einsteins' being backed up by solid empirical evidence, ill have to call you out on it.

 

So come on, humor me, try to follow the scenario I outlined, and provide the reason why relativity still works, how it is supposed to work.

If you provide a half decent answer, Ill recant, and join your damn church.

[exchemist]

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!

This site is the most tolerant of cranks, trolls and nutters of any science form on the internet. In consequence it attracts all the people who have been banned everywhere else. I suspect Marcospolo is just a troll: his ignorance and aggression have a Baroque quality to them that seems unreal.    So I put him on Ignore a while ago.  But I do find sometimes that the cranks force me to research things I either did not know or had not thought about for many years, which can be stimulating.  

Edited April 29, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

Exchemist, maybe you should concentrate less on the trolls then? Maybe concentrate on why you revel in being such a bully?

 

Reflection on your own condition seems to be the least of your concern. Perhaps that should be the main concern of the moderators at the site? Instead of bullying your way through forums with ad hoc arguments and disparaging comments on others, you could demonstrate some manners and maybe some humility... if you really think so high of yourself.

 

Seriously, I don't see you lasting here if you keep it up, but that is just my personal opinion.

[Amplituhedron]

And I did not bother to read Einsteins material, because  its babbling nonsense.

 

And for the record, no test has proved that light speed is invariant.

 

Relativists have INTERPRETED the observation to mean, (in their minds) that it supports their theory.

 

Bu the observation can and do have other interpretations, so you don't get to automatically claim that your version is the one we should accept.

The correct place to start, BEFORE you look at supporting observational evidence, is to have a rational, sound, solid hypothesis.

 

You don't have that!

 

You cant explain rationally how Einstein's  hypothesis is supposed to make sense, so its either too hard for you to figure out, or its just nonsense.

 

You cant bother to try understand my rather simple questions, or you cant understand them because you are particularly stupid, take your pick.

 

Dismissing someones simple questions about this supposedly well understood (by you) theory, is not how to win over new believers to your religion.

 

So as long s you go on making these wild unsubstantiated claims about this impossible theory of Einsteins' being backed up by solid empirical evidence, ill have to call you out on it.

 

So come on, humor me, try to follow the scenario I outlined, and provide the reason why relativity still works, how it is supposed to work.

If you provide a half decent answer, Ill recant, and join your damn church.

 

Jebus Christmas, man, I DID answer you — I pointed out that in the twins paradox, one of the two twins switches frames. That IS the answer to the so-called paradox — and the part of the scenario you completely omitted in your presentation! What part of this don’t you get? Never mind, it’s a rhetorical question.

 

As to light speed, it is always measured to be invariant — erm, what other interpretation of this fact should we entertain?

 

Relativity is not a religion, and I am not looking for converts.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Amplituhedron]

Very simple explanation of, and resolution to, the twin paradox, in three minutes. As I noted, the resolution involves switching frames, which fact marcospolo completely ignored.

[exchemist]

Very simple explanation of, and resolution to, the twin paradox, in three minutes. As I noted, the resolution involves switching frames, which fact marcospolo completely ignored.

So it is all to do with what happens when one observer changes direction. Very elegant. 

[Dubbelosix]

So it is all to do with what happens when one observer changes direction. Very elegant. 

 

 

Carefully ignored, well done. Let's leave it be then shall we?

[exchemist]

Carefully ignored, well done. Let's leave it be then shall we?

What? You still here?  

Edited April 29, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

What? You still here?  

 

Apparently so... the real question is how long you will last. You know how to rid yourself of your own demons... go to places which will appease your need to bully people into satisfying your own sadistic needs. Of course, my account is at the behest of the moderators here, maybe you have a problem with that too?

 

I offered to have my account discontinued, but it seems I may be wanted here?

[ralfcis]

Okay let's not veer off topic. My challenge still stands for just one relativity crank on here to prove my contention that any example they cited as only being explained by length contraction is false. Of course no disciple in the church of relativity understands that science is about trying to prove your beliefs wrong. I've given you Greene's video. All you have to do is change the variable L into t or v where v=L/t  where the primed variables are from the depicted "moving" perspective and unprimed from the depicted "stationary" perspective. Just follow what I did for the muon example or the forwardland/backwardland train example way back. I'm not going to show them the answer ever because I've seen they can't understand anyone showing them anything against their holy beliefs. So I'm going to make them do the work so they can understand for themselves. Popeye needs to do this for himself as well and he may actually succeed where the others have no hope because he does know some math and cranks usually don't. This will pretty much establish on what side the real cranks lie and they do lie, a lot. I'm going to enjoy the silence.

Edited April 29, 2019 by ralfcis

[Dubbelosix]

Leaving accusations of crank behind, the length contraction is certainly real. In fact, it is related to the geometry of the vacuum itself according to the system at hand. Just as Wheeler put forth, the increase of energy moving through space as found from a simple system, like an electron, owes that property to the geometry of spacetime. Now, unless you argue spacetime is not real, then the rest of the physics as he understood it, cannot follow.

[Amplituhedron]

Nobody here, that I know of, said that any example is explained ONLY by length contraction. All the results are explained by time dilation and length contraction together.  Unfortunately, you can't even address the simple arithmetic of the example I linked you, but demand others slog through your numerology? LOL, no.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[ralfcis]

So far one response and no algebra to support it. I don't accept "everybody says so", "there's no other way to explain it" and  "math can be wrong" as answers to the simple question I posed.  I won't be peaking in on Amp's or exchemist's  posts because they certainly won't have any valid answers with math judging from past posts.

[Dubbelosix]

So far one response and no algebra to support it. I don't accept "everybody says so", "there's no other way to explain it" and  "math can be wrong" as answers to the simple question I posed.  I won't be peaking in on Amp's or exchemist's  posts because they certainly won't have any valid answers with math judging from past posts.

 

I certainly would never agree that a situation is true just because ''everybody says so.'' There is however, an element in which we have to respect the true process of the scientific methodology.

[Amplituhedron]

So far one response and no algebra to support it. I don't accept "everybody says so", "there's no other way to explain it" and  "math can be wrong" as answers to the simple question I posed.  I won't be peaking in on Amp's or exchemist's  posts because they certainly won't have any valid answers with math judging from past posts.

 

This is not true. Sluggo gave you the maths and you threw a tantrum, larded with your trademark whining, ad homs, insults, and general personal attacks. 

[marcospolo]

Jebus Christmas, man, I DID answer you — I pointed out that in the twins paradox, one of the two twins switches frames. That IS the answer to the so-called paradox — and the part of the scenario you completely omitted in your presentation! What part of this don’t you get? Never mind, it’s a rhetorical question.

 

As to light speed, it is always measured to be invariant — erm, what other interpretation of this fact should we entertain?

 

Relativity is not a religion, and I am not looking for converts.

Look, that excuse for the twin paradox about jumping frames is about as useful as the excuse that the ship accelerates then decelerates. Both these excuses don't hold up to any scrutiny.

So its NOT the answer. Its a weak excuse.

This is a thought experiment, and its not hard to rearrange the experiment to do away with switching frames, as if a frame is a physical thing that you literally can climb into and out of like a car! It not, its a concept, so switching concepts is not going to have any affect on physicality.

So what else you got?  In my example which you did not want to read, there was no frame jumping anyway. Unless you really think that on the way from zero to the desired speed and final inertial state, there exists an infinite number of frames, both inertial and non inertial that the ship and occupant needs to ho p into on out of...? Really, and infinite number of frames?  Read my scenario.

 

And how come I'm a troll? Is a troll anyone who you don't like? or don't agree with? Im no more a troll than you. You have your ideas, so do I. Either we are both trolls or none of us are.  I'm just asking you to supply reasonable answers and explanations to your claims, which you always fail to do.

 

'Switching frames' is no rational excuse at all.

 

Light speed is not invariant just because you say so. The claimed experiment you are basing that assumption on, is not conclusive, this  does not constitute empirical proof, so stop claiming that its a fact.

 

A religion is anything where you have unbelievable illogical claims but accept them by faith in the authority of the leaders.

That would be Relativity.

[ralfcis]

" the length contraction is certainly real. In fact, it is related to the geometry of the vacuum itself according to the system at hand. "

 

Subtlety of meaning and the precision of language and terms seems to be lost on physics forums. I tried to connect the GR effects of a black hole's event horizon with SR's effects of light speed but there were too many other effects to make the connection solid. In fact, I haven't yet seen a clear connection between the two. Is the 1D length contraction in SR related to the 3D space contraction in GR? One is indeed real as space is physically contracted and the other is not as it's from reciprocal perspectives. What relativists can't understand is why we find that statement so patently false. Some thing can't be real if it's dependent on perspective and it disappears once the conditions that caused it disappear. That is a mirage and even though you can take pictures of a mirage, the mirage is not what it looks like, there is no water.

 

So to relate length contraction to space contraction is obviously more smoke and mirrors. It's like people's inabilities here to understand the subtle differences between age difference, time dilation and the Doppler shift ratio. Maybe we should start a thread on how SR and GR relate but until then we should keep GR explanations, which few if any understand, to support purely SR arguments.

 

I see there are no takers of my algebra challenge here because while many seem able to scribble down much more complicated formulas (more smoke and mirrors), basic algebra seems to be impossible for them. So I am going to waste my time proving whatever can be expressed in terms of length contraction can also be expressed in terms of time dilation or Yv. The same people who claim length and time are two sides of the same coin can't seem to accept what that really means. It sickens me that I have to waste time trying to explain something mathematically to people incapable of understanding but now I see there are 3 clear fronts  in the battle against relativity. The one I've been concentrating on is relativity's arbitrary limits on the calculation of age difference. The second is relativity's definition of time. And now the third is its dependency on length contraction which relativity can't survive without. 

 

PS. For those who may feel I'm not addressing their questions or counter-arguments, it's probably because I have you on ignore and won't be peeking in to see what you have to say. Save yourselves the trouble of responding. If I do answer, you're not on my list (yet).

Edited April 30, 2019 by ralfcis