Relativity And Simple Algebra

[Amplituhedron]

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.

 

The reason I think you are a troll is exemplified yet again by this quoted post. It makes false and ignorant claims. For example, contrary to what you say, the speed of light c IS measured to be invariant in all frames; and is so measured routinely — were it not so, much of our basic technology, such as GPS, would fail; in fact GPS has to take into account BOTH special relativity AND general relativity — the fact that satellite time slows relative to an earth frame, but also that, per GR, earth-based clocks slow relative to the satellites, because they are in a gravity well.

 

To call relativity a religion is not an opinion, it is just plain trolling. People who accept relativity do NOT accept it on faith alone, or by authority. We accept it because SR and GR have both been repeatedly empirically verified, and because both can be mathematically described without contradiction. This is the very essence of a successful theory, and is the EXACT OPPOSITE of faith-based beliefs. You might as well call all of science a religion, which may in fact be what you think. If so, you’re wrong.

 

I do not accept Einstein’s authority on anything. Einstein declared quantum mechanics to be an incomplete theory — the evidence shows Einstein was wrong. I go with the evidence, not authority or faith. 

 

You are a troll because you either fail to engage with my points or mischaracterize them. For example, you say it’s very easy to set up a scenario without any frame switching at all. Yes, it is — and I already addressed that. Your ignoring my response, and then repeating the question as if I dodged it when I did not, is called trolling. I will not waste anymore time on characters like you.

 

You have also ignored my point that relativity theory is not recent — it was discovered by Galileo. Are you saying Galileo was also wrong? The only difference between Galilean and Einstein relativity is that Einstein realized that because light speed is invariant as measured in all inertial frames, it must be the case that relativity of simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction take place — they simply fall out of the invariance of light speed. Had Galileo realized that light speed was invariant, and did not therefore obey his addition of velocities formula, he would have discovered what Einstein discovered in a flash. He would have seen right away that time dilation and length contraction must occur.

 

This fact can be demonstrated (described) by algebra, by simple arithmetic, and by geometry.

 

I conclude, rightly, that you are a troll. The claim, just by itself, that relativity is a religion makes you unworthy of paying attention to any longer — and I will not pay attention to your crap any longer. You can troll right off.

Edited April 30, 2019 by Amplituhedron

[Amplituhedron]

This is, btw, the difference between you and ralf -- ralf is sincere. Wrong, but sincere. He has never displayed any trolling behavior. 

[marcospolo]

This is, btw, the difference between you and ralf -- ralf is sincere. Wrong, but sincere. He has never displayed any trolling behavior. 

Look, you are repeating the generally accepted versions of Relativity, called SR and GR, and believe that you have both Mathematical and observational evidence to support it.

 

I on the other hand, look at the standard claims, and DO not agree that they are either Mathematically, Logically or Rationally valid.

I further take objection to the claims that you call certain observations, "empirical proof" of the theories.

 

So this is why when you say things like, "GPS proves that SR and GR are correct".  I don' agree that its anything of the sort.

My view is that the accepted explanations are all based on underlying fundamental assumptions that are just wrong.

 

Take the claim that light has been proven to be the same velocity for any observer. This is simply not true. Why do you keep saying it?

M&M experiment which was a failure to record anything of note, was LATER claimed to be some proof that light always goes at C for an observer.

 

This is one possible  interpretation of the results, (or lack of results) but its NOT the only possibility, and its not even the most reasonable.

 

You don't get to say that your pet interpretation is correct when we have several possibilities.

 

Additionally, the conclusion that one can draw IF one assumes that light always will be measured at c for any observer, leads to unreasonable claims.

In fact it leads to a total logical inconsistency.

No Physicist, not Einstein or anyone since, and not you, has EVER suggested any way that light could be measured by any observer as traveling at c REGARDLESS of the relative velocity of the observer, and even if he is moving in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION!

 

This claim constitutes a Logical contradiction 

and HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED OR OBSERVED.  And never can be!

 

You are truly accepting that particular claim by faith alone as you have no supporting evidence. Certainly NOT the M&M experiment.

 

Here I am trying to point out that we have a problem with Physics, for valid reasons, and the standard answers are not answers at all, and all I get is I am called a Troll.

 

I for one would like to get to a sound base for Physics, and strip away all the errors that have piled up over the last 100 years, as evidenced by the weirdness and self contradictory natures of new theories.

 

All I get is people like you pointing me to old material that I have already found to be inaccurate or just plain incorrect.

Of course I'm going to get a little pisses off.

[marcospolo]

I assume you are familiar with the light clock? A rod with mirrors at each end is placed perpendicular upon a conveyance moving in constant uniform motion with respect to an observer in a rest frame. Light pulses bounce back and forth between the mirrors, up and down, ticking off the time. From the rest-frame point of view, the clock will tick slower than a rest frame light clock. I assume you understand why?

 

Now all one need do is place the same light clock parallel to the direction of motion, and length contraction automatically follows. If it did not, the speed of light would not be measured to be constant in all frames — which it always is.

Hey, I followed that link about the vertical and horizontal light clocks.

Its written by a "distinguished" Professor who specializes in Einsteins work.

I had a problem with this Horizontal and vertical experiment, and his or rather Einsteins theory as to whats supposed to occur.

So I wrote to him ans asked for his solution.

Guess what?  He could not supply any solution.

 

So here's my problem, maybe you are smarter then this Professor and can solve it.

 

The vertical clock stays at original length.

But the horizontal clock shrinks with speed. All observers MUST see that the pulse of light arrives at the "top" (right hand mirror in the example) mirror at the same time for both clocks.

 

So how does he and Brian Greene solve this?

Well using Gamma of course!

Read the article and see how he solves it...

 

Now the problem I see is that sure maybe the Horizontal clock shrinks, and then it will match the cycles of the vertical clock.

Except for one big problem.  We have now one pulse having to traverse a shorter clock length in x amount of time, AND in the same amount of time an identical pulse of light must traverse a STRETCHED vertical clock, (remember in this scenario the light has to travel at a diagonal zig zag path?)

So how come the identical pulses of light, (a constant speed) in both clocks can manage to go two totally different lengths in the same time?

We are not in the slightest bit interested in what the observer who is in the ship containing the clocks, thinks is happening, to him its claimed everything is normal.

But to the outside "stationary" observer, we will see the diagonal light path and the shrunken horizontal clock.  We will conclude as Einstein did that TIME dilates and length contracts. BUT the TIME that has dilated, is the SAME TIME that is inside the ship containing the two clocks! They dont each have different times, they are in one inertial frame of reference.

 

Solve that you Relativists. The Distinguished Professor had no clue, and said so in his email replay to me.

[ralfcis]

Ok, here we go. I'm going to try and go as slowly as I can. Here is an STD depicting a stationary light clock. The two mirrors are 1 distance unit away. The upper mirror send a yellow light signal at t = 1 which reaches the lower mirror at t =2. This gets reflected as a green light signal and the upper receives it at t=3 and so on and so on. Is everyone with me so far? If you don't speak up now you can't speak up at the end.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/CeaQ2nEw3gxSpAsQ8

Edited May 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[OceanBreeze]

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.  

 

In grateful appreciation of his invaluable contributions to this forum, Moronium was given a two-week, no expenses paid Holiday.

I hope he has enjoyed it! I suspect he’ll be back soon, if he isn’t already.

[ralfcis]

Now we're going to move the light clock at .6c. We'll just move the upper mirror for now which will align the lower mirror later. We know Y = 1.25 so we draw the time units on the upper mirror in red corresponding to the blue time units of the stationary background frame. You might think it's weird I started the lower mirror .5 distance units away from the start of the stationary frame but it just made future drawings easier. If you follow the yellow light signal from t'=1, it is received at t= 2.5 after a delay of 1.25. 2.5-1.25 = 1.25 which proves, according to the stationary backgound's line of perspective simultaneity that its perspective of the upper mirror t'=1 is that the background frame is t = 1.25 which is what relativity says it should be.

 

Now we want to place the lower mirror in this diagram. We know from the previous STD that the upper light signal from t'=1 will reach the lower mirror at t"=2. We also know the reflected light signal from the lower mirror at t"=2 will reach the upper mirror at t'=3. So we draw a green light signal backwards from t'=3 and where it intersects the light signal from t'=1 is the correct position of the lower mirror.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/2DsrwCj8zD7j1tUdA

 

Now we can add the purple line for the lower mirror also going at .6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/f6aoFbwpPozBJ7d69

 

Now most of you with the attention span of a gnat will wonder why that light clock signal looks so distorted. The time from upper to lower mirror is only .5 while the time from lower to upper is 2. I'm going to let your tiny brains stew on this. I went to great lengths to explain that relative velocity can't be drawn in an STD and how to reconcile depiction with reality.  Maybe someone here can parrot the correct answer to this conundrum. More later, thanks for wasting most of my day. Oh yeah, any intelligent questions?

Edited May 1, 2019 by ralfcis

[Amplituhedron]

 

 

Solve that you Relativists. The Distinguished Professor had no clue, and said so in his email replay to me.

 

This is just terrible trolling — really terrible! You expect any sentient person to believe that you emailed John Norton asking for an answer to your question, and that he emailed you back to say that he could not explain, what he so very clearly explained in the linked article? :lol:

 

Assuming you emailed Norton at all, which I very much doubt, I expect he ignored  your email. On the very remote chance that he responded to you, I would bet he simply told you to reread his article, slowly, preferably while moving your lips.

 

Trolling isn’t all bad. It can be an art form: It’s the modern equivalent of pranking, when people trolled others via telephone.

 

Here is some master-level trolling: There is a longtime poster at another board who pretends to be a foe of evolution. He is such a good troll that he has actually had anti-evolution papers accepted for publication in peer-reviewed science journals. In addition to the fact that his trolling exposes the flaws of peer review and the publication process, it drives the evolutionary biologists with whom he corresponds on the board in question absolutely nuts that he was able to get anti-evolution stuff printed in peer-reviewed science journals. Now THAT, my friend, is quality trolling!

 

Until you can perform like that, you’re a patzer as a troll. ;-)

[Amplituhedron]

For any interested who have not read it yet, here is Norton’s entire article: Special Theory of Relativity: Clocks and Rods. In it, he very clearly explains, with elementary calculations, why the principle of relativity requires objects to length contract in their direction of motion.

[ralfcis]

There's a mistake in the purple line or there's a 2nd blue line missing. I'm going to have to figure this out and hold off on my insults for now.

[Amplituhedron]

Now most of you with the attention span of a gnat will wonder why that light clock signal looks so distorted. The time from upper to lower mirror is only .5 while the time from lower to upper is 2. I'm going to let your tiny brains stew on this. I went to great lengths to explain that relative velocity can't be drawn in an STD and how to reconcile depiction with reality.  Maybe someone here can parrot the correct answer to this conundrum. More later, thanks for wasting most of my day. Oh yeah, any intelligent questions?

 

 

 

There's a mistake in the purple line or there's a 2nd blue line missing. I'm going to have to figure this out and hold off on my insults for now.

 

 

:lol:

 

Ralf, you’ve been doing this exact thing for years, across multiple boards, all of which have banned you except, so far, for this one. You brazenly put out some STD abracadabra, declare everyone to be a moron for not grasping your genius, and then, later, you come back and say, “Oops, never mind! I effed up that last post!”

 

:lol:

 

You wonder why no one takes you seriously or responds to your posts?

[marcospolo]

Ok, here we go. I'm going to try and go as slowly as I can. Here is an STD depicting a stationary light clock. The two mirrors are 1 distance unit away. The upper mirror send a yellow light signal at t = 1 which reaches the lower mirror at t =2. This gets reflected as a green light signal and the upper receives it at t=3 and so on and so on. Is everyone with me so far? If you don't speak up now you can't speak up at the end.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/CeaQ2nEw3gxSpAsQ8

so far so good, but you hardly need a graphical representation of up and down. But go on. (also, you realize that the mythical light operated clock is impossible in the real world, right? It would never work. But I digress.... please continue.

[Amplituhedron]

As Norton pointed out in his essay, we've already made a working light clock, using the earth and moon. :lol:

[marcospolo]

As Norton pointed out in his essay, we've already made a working light clock, using the earth and moon. :lol:

Norton is wrong.You are wrong. 

Firing a light pulse at a mirror on the moon and recording the elapsed time IS not a LIGHT CLOCK!

It would qualify as a light clock as per the description in the Einstein light clock thought experiment, only if you fired a very short pulse of light to the moon mirror, and had that same pulse of light return to an Earth based mirror, and repeat, back and forth between the two mirrors. Thereby trapping a single pulse of light endlessly between the two mirrors.

 

Try this at home, it simply will not work.  The light stops going back and forth the moment you turn off the light source.

You cannot trap a single photon or even a short pulse of light between tow mirrors, so as to create a timing device.

HA HA.

[Amplituhedron]

Maybe you could fake email Norton about this issue, too, and discuss his fake reply. :lol:

[marcospolo]

Now we're going to move the light clock at .6c. We'll just move the upper mirror for now which will align the lower mirror later. We know Y = 1.25 so we draw the time units on the upper mirror in red corresponding to the blue time units of the stationary background frame. You might think it's weird I started the lower mirror .5 distance units away from the start of the stationary frame but it just made future drawings easier. If you follow the yellow light signal from t'=1, it is received at t= 2.5 after a delay of 1.25. 2.5-1.25 = 1.25 which proves, according to the stationary backgound's line of perspective simultaneity that its perspective of the upper mirror t'=1 is that the background frame is t = 1.25 which is what relativity says it should be.

 

Now we want to place the lower mirror in this diagram. We know from the previous STD that the upper light signal from t'=1 will reach the lower mirror at t"=2. We also know the reflected light signal from the lower mirror at t"=2 will reach the upper mirror at t'=3. So we draw a green light signal backwards from t'=3 and where it intersects the light signal from t'=1 is the correct position of the lower mirror.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/2DsrwCj8zD7j1tUdA

 

Now we can add the purple line for the lower mirror also going at .6c.

 

https://photos.app.goo.gl/f6aoFbwpPozBJ7d69

 

Now most of you with the attention span of a gnat will wonder why that light clock signal looks so distorted. The time from upper to lower mirror is only .5 while the time from lower to upper is 2. I'm going to let your tiny brains stew on this. I went to great lengths to explain that relative velocity can't be drawn in an STD and how to reconcile depiction with reality.  Maybe someone here can parrot the correct answer to this conundrum. More later, thanks for wasting most of my day. Oh yeah, any intelligent questions?

Yeah, here is my question:  You are working from a stationary background frame for all these graphs.  So that being the case, the light moving from the base of the clock, in a vertical direction, will never meet up with the top mirror at all, if you moved the top mirror before the light got to that height!

 

As you are working with an absolute background frame, the light going vertical wil never decide to suddenly go in an angled trajectory.

Please explain this and revise your graphics according to to reality. Then continue.

[marcospolo]

Maybe you could fake email Norton about this issue, too, and discuss his fake reply. :lol:

Never mind Norton, what is your explanation?